Role 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).

The Federalist believed that there should be a strong central government . The Anti-Federalist believed in less power in government and more in the people and to have our rights guaranteed. Based on the Bill of Rights and the way it was interpreted the Anti-Federalists were right.

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 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

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 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

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 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.

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.

The Federalist wanted the government to get the nation and delegates power over the Constitution. The reason is to have authority over the federal government. The Anti-federalist believes that the government

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.

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.

Some concerns of the Anti-Federalist party was that the constitution gave too much power to the federal government while taking too much power away from the state and local government. Many thought that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen. They thought the nation was too large for the national government to respond to the concern of people on a state and local basis. Also, the constitution didn’t contain a bill of rights. They wanted guaranteed protection for certain basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and trial by jury.

The Antifederalists were obviously opposed to the Constitution, and they were in full support of the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists leaders, like Patrick Henry, believed the Constitution challenged individual’s liberty. The Antifederalists acted in factions. As the Federalists believed in a strong central government, the Antifederalists thought this would get in the way of state sovereignty. Furthermore, other factions within the Antifederalists believed a strong, central government would reflect the government of Great Britain, in which they were trying to get away from. Patrick Henry publicly spoke out against the Constitution claiming it would give the States very limited power. The Constitution was to contain a president, army, and the power to tax. Henry and others viewed this as basically Great Britain. They were afraid that the

No, I do not believe that the fears of the Anti-Federalists have materialized for the most part. This is largely due to how the government is organized. Some of the main fears of the Anti-Federalists were that the new constitution would allow for the government to become too powerful; thereby, giving it the ability to dominate over state governments and individual people’s rights. However, the Constitution put in place many safeguards and mechanisms to ensure that these worries do not come ring true. These mechanisms include Federalism (a system that divides legal power among national and state governments), Separation of Powers (which splits up the federal government into 3 branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial), and Checks and Balances