Pros And Cons Of Anti-Federalists

There exist similarities between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, 1987). However, they disagreed on the size of government appropriate in a republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalists wanted a small republic with a state government. Both the federalists and anti-federalists were liberals and republicans. Republicanism refers to a political theory of government that advocates for the participation of the people for the common good of the community (Rawls, 1993). It focuses on the importance of virtue. Virtue is important because it encourages ‘personal restraint and willingness to contribute to the common good’ (Bryner, 1987, p. 2).

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were created in response to the United States Constitution. In 1787, the Second Continental Congress called for a federal convention. This meeting in Philadelphia came to create the U.S Constitution. It originally was held to revise the Articles of Confederation, but due to the mindsets of many proponents present at the convention, like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and the vision of creating a new government rather than fixing the old one, the United States Constitution was formed. Once this was sent to congress it was submitted to the states for ratification. In response, many articles and letters were submitted to the public criticizing the proposition. These articles and letters are where the Anti-Federalist papers are derived from. Although there was opposition to the Constitution, many were in its favor. In response to these criticizing papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote papers in the constitutions defense. These were come to be known as the Federalist papers. Two papers in particular, Federalist 51 and Anti--Federalist 51, are written on the topic of checks and balances and how this relates to a separation of powers within the national government. These arguments were successful due to their primary points of contention and strong arguments proposed.

Anti- Federalist were against the Constitution all together but most of all, I think the Anti-Federalist were against the fact that the state government’s would no longer have as much power like it did with the Articles of Confederation. The constitution supported the idea of a powerful and strong central government. The congress had the power to tax people, and make rules and regulations as it says in document two. With liberty being the Anti-Federalist’s biggest argument, the federalist got the idea that with all the power congress had, their freedom and rights would be threatened or even

After the Americans won the Revolutionary War, the Americans feared a central government that was too powerful. To meet these wishes The Articles of Confederation were created, it had a weak central government and gave states the overall power. This was running the United States into the ground, which is not what was planned. They decided a change was necessary to save their country. Each representative from the thirteen colonies came together to write The Constitution. The supporters of ratifying the constitution were called Federalists and those against ratifying it were called Anti-Federalists.

The Anti-Federalist oppose the proposed constitution because the anti -federalists felt as though i gave too much of the power to the national government. The anti-federalist believed that if the y gave the national government got too much power then they would end up like the British monarchy

During 1787 to 1789, I believe that it would have been better to side with the anti-federalists because they believed in a more free form of government. The anti-federalists would rather live an agrarian lifestyle instead of being so uptight with their government standing over them. They also believed that the Constitution was lacking bill of rights which is the most important thing that it should obtain. The last thing that they argued that would help us be more free was for the government to not have just one president but many leaders so that the people's voice would be heard.

Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, had disparate visions about how the country should be administered, which would cause a complication with our founding fathers, who formulated a way to run the country. Federalists assumed to have a forceful central government, central bank. Federalists presumed that in a government, checks and balance works out, so there is no tension between individuals.

When the Constitution of the Untied States was written, there was not a clear cut and dry answer as to what was to go into the document. Many of the articles and clauses of the Constitution were debated by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. One topic that was debated during the drafting of the Constitution and even after the Constitution was signed was the formation and powers of the Senate.

Although the Federalists and Anti-federalists didn’t agree on the ratification of the Constitution, they both feared the president would obtain or misuse too much power. Igniting a corrupt tyrannical government, equivalent to previous British rule. The Anti-federalists were afraid that ratifying the Constitution, would take away most of the power from local governments and individual states to the central government. So, the powers that the president should acquire were highlighted. Among these were expressed, delegated and inherent powers. On the other hand, Federalists feared a weak centralized government would influence abusive presidential powers. As a result, they expressed limited powers of the President, during his time in office. Such

The Federalists were the supporters of the Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists were not. The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution granted too much power to the central government causing the weakening of the self-government of local communities and states. The Federalists believed in a central government, which would give less power to the communities and states and more to the government. These idea split the two groups. Although at first many states were Anti-Federalist at first, they all ended up converting to being Federalist. For example states like New York, Virginia, and North Carolina had many Anti-Federalist supporters and were a few of the last states to commit. The Federalists won though, because they promised to

Two groups—Federalists and Antifederalists—had opposing views about the newly proposed Constitution and on how to construct a new form of government effectively. The Federalists, on one hand, desired a strong national government and the government run by educated citizens. The Federalists believed that it wasn’t necessary for the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights because the government would already have the duty to protect the rights of the people with what the Constitution already offered on its own plan of government.On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists did not agree with the Constitution because they believed that it should have a Bill of Rights, and because they feared that giving more power to the central government would take

“A bill of rights, therefore, ought to set forth the purposes for which the compact is made, and serves to secure the minority against the usurpation and tyranny of the majority.” (Winthrop, 53) The group strongly believed that this new form of government did not protect the rights of the people as individuals. The vast majority of the Anti-Federalists consisted of the people from least populated states. States with larger populations supported James Madison’s Virginia Plan, which called for a bicameral legislature with representation to a state’s population – this is another reason why the Anti-Federalists were formed.

The difference is pretty simple. A federalist believes in a strong centralized government. An federalist's believes in local control, and not a centralized government. People like James Madison believed that the central place of power needed work, and it seemed weak. This was why he wanted to save the union which meant pursuing this change would recognize this weakness of the union, and that is something that he wanted to change. This chapter also touches on the negative aspects of a federalist approach that the Colonists endured from the British which means that they sometimes can be harsh. From this point, we could say that the Colonist did not prefer a Federalist approach, but more of a anti-federalist one. Union members like George Washington

My conclusion is that everything in life like the federalist and the anti-federalist both has pros and cons. Though it seems that the federal government means well in the constitution. Even though they see as an impeccable in the constitution but they failed to notice that the anti-federalist is trying to defend not only the states but, also the citizens of us. I prefer the anti-federalist simply because they try toke make improvement and changes. They had an open minded and wanted the voice of the people to be

The Anti-federalist simply wanted the states to have the control. They wanted the states to have the power, because they thought that it would ensure their naturals rights and not to have them taken advantage f again like before with King George the III. Their only goals was to keep their natural rights. In Foreign Wars, Civil Wars and Indian Wars- Three Bugbears published in The Anti-federalist Papers the authors