N The History Of The United States, The Anti-Federalists

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government

The Federal government in the Articles didn’t have much power and therefore, they wanted the constitution so they could have more power. The Federalists supported the constitution because it gave the Federal government more power

The Federalists supports the Constitution as it was and want to change the Constitution immediately. Federalists support a strong central government giving little power to states but ample amounts to federal government. “We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.” This was taken from the Federalist Papers No. 39 and it describes how the Federalist think the government should be run. “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their

Most Americans did not trust the new government that was in place, but the Anti-Federalist was really skeptical of the government in general and strong national government. So in not trusting the government they did not approve of the new constitution. They were afraid it created a government that the people could not manage. Many notable Americans were Anti-Federalists. Some of the creators of the Anti-Federalist papers included George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. Both were present the Philadelphia Convention but had declined to sign the constitution. The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution had many imperfections. The Anti-Federalist believed the Constitution should have been constructed in a more public place and not behind closed

The Anti-Federalist Papers recognized that the people one in power “can seldom or never resume it again but by force”. The establishment of a single law that would be equally applied to all states and where the power would be vested in a central government represented, for the anti-federalists, the condition of the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States. “Nor the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given”. Anti-Federalist Papers established their fear on having a judicial branch that would overrule over the state courts without attending to the necessity of the local people, as well, the congress would be able to limit the decisions of the national state if it would affect the well-being of the whole nation, again, limiting the purpose of the national government on the pursuit of happiness of its own

The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

During the Revolutionary War, colonists believed that they needed a sense of unified government, so this led to the creation of the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the United States (history.com). Although the Articles of Confederation had its strengths, such as allowing the central government to create treaties and maintain military, it had many weaknesses, such as preventing the central government to levy taxes and regulate trade. It also could not be changed unless there was a unanimous decision and it lacked a stable currency. Since the creation of the Articles of Confederation had many issues and weaknesses, the Continental Congress rewrote the Articles into what is now known as the U.S Constitution. The Constitution established a national government, guaranteed basic rights for the colonists and revised almost everything that was wrong in the original Articles, such as the sovereignty that resided primarily in the states and the lack of power from the national government. The Constitution was later ratified by all 13 states in May 1790, with the support of the Federalist Party. [A] Federalists believed in the commitment to a strong national government and in the practice of a separation of powers. However, Anti-Federalists had the opposite view which was the opposition of a strong national government, the support for small landowners, and the representation of rights of the people. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong national government

The Anti-Federalist put up a long and hard fight, however, they were not as organized as the Federalists. While the Anti- Federalist had great concerns about the Constitution and National government, the Federalist had good responses to combat these concerns. The Federalist were and for the Constitution and feel the Article of Confederation were not worth ratifying, these should be scrapped altogether. They felt that the Articles limited the power of congress, because congress had to request cooperation from the states. Unlike the Anti-Federalist, the Federalist organized quickly, had ratifying conventions, and wrote the Federalist papers to rebut the Anti- Federalist arguments.

Anti-Federalists and Federalists were opinionated groups who tried to sway Americans about the Constitution. Anti-Federalists opposed developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution. Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power. The Federalists disagreed because they wanted a government that was stronger on the national level and that had the Constitution to manage tensions and debts from the Revolution. They both differed in many ways, but one way that they were similar was because they had an impact on the way the Constitution was written.

The first matter that Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on was that they both wanted a form of government. This means they both had a vision for this country. This vision was not the same as how what they lived before the American Independence; in fact, it was a vision that was different than anything came before. Sadly, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists had different vision when forming a government. Federalists wanted a strong central government, and this meant unity for the country. They believed that this country should have the separation of powers and checks of balances to prevent a monarchy. The separation of powers is the

The arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency during the ratifying debates that followed the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 were persuasive, but distinctly at odds. Both sides, however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not a President should even exist, and if so, what powers he should be granted. I will briefly examine the presidential powers that were primarily awarded under Article II of the new Constitution. I will then explore the opposing arguments that arose during the ratifying debates concerning those granted powers. I do so in the interest of offering a

(Document 2) This quote illustrates that there was no way to prevent the branches (executive, judicial, legislative) from abusing their powers. The anti-federalists feared what this strong central government would become. Reasonably, if the constitution was ratified, the federalists would have endless control. The anti federalists feared the government would become a monarchy. Perhaps the biggest argument was mentioned in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, “it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth….powers not expressly delegated by the constitution… are reserved to several states.” (Document 6) This quote states that the powers that were not given to the original constitution would now be given to the states. Basically, if there was any right or law not originally in the constitution the states were given the right to adjust and look after it.

For the Constitution to become the nationally followed series of rule, nine of thirteen states would have had to approve it. To gain this approval, the people of America had to be convinced that a stronger government was needed to create a successful country; while being assured that this government would not take away their liberties and would not give power to only those who were more privileged than others. Small states, who approved the unity, were the first to ratify the Constitution unlike large states who found the individual governments adequate.

This was the Anti-Federalists most effective argument in the ratification battle. The lack of a Bill of Rights was evidence that the Framers had either failed to build in fortifications against tyranny or worse that they had purposely laid the foundation for tyranny. With Americans already experiencing democracy in their own towns and states, with the proposed centralized powers the people viewed it as a danger to their rights. The Anti-Federalists were confident in their fight to overthrow the Constitution and preserve the sovereignty and power of the states, with the fact that there were no protections of the peoples civil

While the anti-Federalists believed the Constitution and formation of a National Government would lead to a monarchy or aristocracy, the Federalists vision of the country supported the belief that a National Government based on the Articles of the Confederation was inadequate to support an ever growing and expanding nation.