Pros And Cons Of Anti Federalists

The Anti-Federalists argued that their form of government was more effective. They argued many points that were reasonable. Brutus wrote that he feared that our government would be controlled by a group of elites, and he thought that these elites would abuse the people’s rights by just doing what would only benefit them. Brutus thought once the elites started running our country, that they would be in power for a long time and no one could change their minds on certain views. (Brutus 1).

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

The Anti-federalist were the people who opposed the sanction of the constitution. They were Samuel Adams and John Hancock etc. They believed that the ratification of the constitution will lead to corruption and abuse of power by the government. The suggested constitution did not benefit the people as it should and did not have an assurance of the people’s right to assembly or bear arms. Anti-federalist believed in controlling government authority, therefore with the assumption that the new ratification will be most favorable to the wealthy, it was a threat to their beliefs— meaning that the poorer citizens will not be able to exercise their liberty for fear of double standard by the elite rulers. Most Anti-federalist were farmers and lower class citizens, so we could understand why they were intimidated by the rich and powerful Federalist— who had backgrounds of educations and could have easily manipulate the system for their own gratification.

The Federalists political party mostly consisted of the upper class people of the United States such as the big farmers, the merchants, and artisans. The Feds wanted the Constitution to be ratified. They supported the Constitution and all of it’s views. The Federalists wanted a change and wanted to shift the power from the States to the central government. However, they didn’t want the central government to be too powerful and wanted the States to continue to retain some of their powers. The Federalists pointed out that the Articles of Confederation failed to keep the country together and with all the power in the State’s hands, the United

I was surprised that I actually agreed with what the Anti-federalist had to say. I found it to be more dense and harder then the federalist number ten. Once I found a good source and was able to understand what the points they are trying to make were, I found that I liked the views they stand for. I liked the idea of more representatives instead of just one for the whole nation. If each state had their own representative they would be able to better represent the interests of those people. Also they wouldn’t have to do so much damage control if each state was taking care of by their own specific representative. If each state had control over whom and what they taxed, they could better control the economy of that state. The people would feel

The main argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they thought that the government would be created would be too powerful and they would just be paving the way for another monarchy like the one that they had just fought so hard to free themselves from in England. They also wanted to add a Bill of Rights before ratifying the constitution and not after. The Pros are that the document had stated to provide protection against the cruel and unlawful act of ruling the american colonies.Freedom of movement which is under Article IV. This section explained the security and perpetual interactions and partnership among the citizens of the emerged nation. The document created a bridge to connect the individual States

Another difference relates to the economic differences between the supporters of both sides. The Federalists were supported by big business interests that operated within and out of the American borders. They considered the implementation of the constitution as a suitable step towards the government being able to regulate the country’s economy. As a result, they would be able to benefit significantly. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalist union was chiefly dominated by small rural communities and farmers, who believed that the local government had more to offer with regards to their profits and the establishment of a market for their goods (Schultz 127). To these farmers, the state government was more

The Anti-Federalists favor a central government similar to the Articles of Confederation. Not all of the Anti-Federalists think identical; Some prefer to stay with the Articles of Confederation and a slightly stronger central government with the states in power would work for America better others prefer to compromise and only adding the Bill of Rights. "The objects of jurisdiction…, are so numerous, and the shades of distinction between civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail." In the Centinel No. 1 the Anti-Federalists tell the people that slightly changing the judicial system or the law can change everything. “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.” In Brutus I the Anti-Federalists input their opinions on how government does not need to be run by one big power but by smaller powers held in the

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

Antifederalists, in the other hand, feared strong central government, tyranny, and dictatorship, and wanted strong state governments, individual liberties and opposed ratification of the Constitution (until a bill of rights was added). Federalists’ supporters were merchants, skilled workers, laborers, cities and small states. Antifederalists’ supporters were large states and rural areas. Both sides believed in the principles of limited government but had different ways of how to limit the government. Antifederalists feared that the national government would take away all the powers of the state government so that is why they wanted the powers of national government to be limited and specified. They also claimed that the bill of rights should be added to the Constitution to limit government’s powers over

Federalists or Anti-federalists are both fair sides, and each side has an arguable amount of supporters. I am an Anti-federalist, or someone who opposes the Constitution. Moreover, we believe that the Constitution takes too much power away from the people. The Federalists on the other hand are those who support the Constitution. They link themselves with the idea of federalism, and federalism is when power is divided and shared between a central government and local governments. In addition, the Constitution gives the national government too much power, it doesn’t provide for a republican government, and in the end, it doesn't provide a Bill of Rights which is vital.

46, James Madison addresses these concerns about the well being of the state governments under the Constitution. Madison argues that the interests of the states will not be lost in Congress, because the loyalty of the legislator will be first to the people of his district and then secondly to the benefit of the whole country. Madison says that the "members of the Federal Legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects"(Madison 239). Madison tried to alleviate the concerns of the Anti-Federalist concerning what type of recourse the states would have against Federal legislation by saying that the states would have powerful means of opposition to any unfavorable or unwarranted legislation. The powerful means of opposition Madison talks about is the displeasure of the people, whom Madison believes to be the fountain from which the Federal government draws its power.

During the Constitutional Convention, the Federalists and Anti Federalists disagreed on many aspects of the Constitution.The Federalists wanted a strong central government while the Anti Federalists were more for state rights. That is just a small fraction of the many arguments that these two factions disagreed upon. The Constitution was eventually ratified with the Federalists compromising with the Anti Federalists by adding The Bill of Rights, a list of the general rights that a citizen was entitled to. Although the Bill of Rights gives us our inalienable rights, the government has compromised our rights to a significant extent many times in history due to fear, corruption, and control.

Federalists were in favor of a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. Thus, they decided that “only a well-educated group of elected officials should be trusted to make decisions for the good of all.” (Doc 3). Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed the creation of a stronger federal government and thus later opposed the ratification of the Constitution; they emphasized individual and state rights. They decided that “freedoms of citizens will not be trampled over by a strong national government.” As a result, they opposed the “rule of a few privileged individuals [overpowering] the will of average citizens.” (Doc

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.