Reasons For The Ant-Federalists

The Articles of Confederation provided a decent initial transition of the new country from a multitude of British colonies into a unified landmass of American citizens during the 1780s. It was drafted by John Dickinson, a statesman from Pennsylvania, who was also known for writing the “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania”. The greatest achievement of the Articles was winning the Revolutionary War and negotiating the Treaty of Paris. Without such achievements, the United States would still be under British control. Other notable achievements of the Articles include the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These land acts helped provide for the peaceful and systematic admittance of new states from initial claims on land put forth by the original thirteen states into the

general system can be adopted. They begin to find that a government with so many heads is a monster in politics” (Humphrey 2003, 109). Rather than working together as a nation for a common cause, states were working against each other. There was no revenue source from the states, and under the Articles of Confederation, there

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 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

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

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.

Tensions were high in the united states during 1788. There were two sides as to what the union should do to move forward. After everybody realized that the Articles of Confederation isn’t going to be work for the country, there was a need for a plan. The plan was to get rid of the Articles of Confederation and replace it with the Constitution. There were many factors in the Constitution that hesitated people to ratify it. The main issue was that the new national government under the new constitution would have a lot more power than the one under the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, it created two different sides; people who wanted the ratification of the new constitution, or federalists, and those who does not, Anti-federalists. To convince the Anti-federalists to change their minds, federalists wrote a series of essays to convince them, known as the federalists’ papers. I agreed with the arguments expressed in the federalists’ papers.

Several different viewpoints on how the Constitution should be shaped can often cause conflicting outcomes. The main topic the argument is if a bill of rights is really necessary. Federalist, a person who supports a system of government, and the Anti-Federalist, who opposes the creation of a stronger government, both have strong feelings towards the idea of a bill of rights. Federalist label the bill "unnecessary" to the Constitution, while Anti-Federalist says it is exactly what the constitution needs. While the Federalist did make some interesting points, the Anti-Federalist won the argument regarding the need for a bill of rights.

Introduction: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” stated Thomas Jefferson. The thirteen colonies created the Article of Confederation to establish a national government during the Revolutionary War. Several years later, the delegates met at the Constitutional Convention and created a new document known as the United States Constitution in 1787. However, it resulted in two major political parties, Federalists and Anti-federalists, that debated over the nature of the government.

There were several reasons that the Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The most predominate reasons being are no defined state or citizens rights, the central government having too much power, non-accurate representation and slaves were not counted as part of the population.

The meetings, drafting, and approval of the Articles of Confederation were timely, innovative, and challenging. The Articles of Confederation, as the first constitution of the U.S., tied the states together in a loose “perpetual union’’ (Sage, 2010). A proposal for a national confederation was introduced by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia in May 1776. Lee stated on that day, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States” (Swindler, 1981). Richard Lee’s resolution focused on three national proposals: to declare the United Colonies independent from Great Britain, to seek foreign alliances for the evident and eventual war with Great Britain, and to establish a plan of confederation to officially unite

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.

The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, can be argued to be one of the most quintessential contributions to United States history. The series of eighty-five essays was published in 1788 to increase support for the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were written to suppress Americans’ apprehensions regarding the creation of a stronger national government. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was fixated on how the new federal government would deal with foreign nations, altercations with the Indians, a depressed economy, and an unstable national government.

Anti-federalists and federalists were formed when the Constitution required ratification from 9 states. The federalists intended affect was to grant secure rights for every American. The anti-federalists didn’t believe that the Constitution granted right to everyone and there was no point in accepting the Constitution if it had to be amended. (¶2 Reasons for not signing the Constitution) The anti-federalists wanted to maintain the power of the states because they thought that a strong central government would control too much of the citizens’ rights. The effect that the Federalists wanted was a strong central government for a new country, they eventually won the fight and managed to ratify the Constitution.