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

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.

In 1787, the Constitution was written and submitted for ratification by the 13 states, but not everyone agreed with it. There were two groups of though. One was the Anti-federalists, who opposed the Constitution and the other group were the Federalists, who supported it. The Anti-federalists were people who supported the Articles of Confederation because they were doing well under them. They were mostly poor people from rural areas and were supported by the big states. They believed that the Constitution did not secure their rights and gave the central government too much power. The Federalists were mostly the wealthy people who lived in or near city areas and were supported by the smaller states. They believed that the separation of

The ability to unify a nation in a liberal democracy and work towards obtaining a given objective is incredibly difficult when everyone’s opinion is supposed to be valued. However it’s not just valuing everyone’s opinion that can cause concern, but the fact that people are allowed to act on their opinions, no matter how radical or crazy they are to the majority of the population. This allows for dissenting opinions against the general will to rise up and hold seats within the legislature; therefore, legitimizing their claims by thrusting them into the public spotlight. This can be both good and bad and it was explored in-depth by James Madison in The Federalist Papers. In his work he states the obvious concerns factions can have on a society

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 concept of theory versus reality is a constant in everyday life. Every person has experienced a situation in which the idea in their head was much better than the outcome. All actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are worse than others. In the case of the Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists, was the drafting of the Constitution actually worth it in the end? When the colonists first came over seas from Great Britain there was one thing that was vastly agreed on—a change in how government works and runs was necessary for the future of America. Two major groups eventually formed behind this way of thinking, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were under the impression that the formation of a constitution and a strong federal government was needed. On the opposite political end there were The Anti-Federalists, were opposed to the idea of a constitution because they worried that the government and the people running it would become too corrupt and powerful. They also believed that a smaller central government was needed with larger governments at the state levels. This smaller central government would be similar to what was formed under the Articles of Confederation. Both sides bring very good arguments, and it is impossible to truly know whether one side’s plan of government would have been better than the other. But when looking at the facts of where our country came from, and where our country is

The Federalist Papers established the definition of a Republic that would govern by the representation of the people and the interest of the society. Based on the principles of Democracy, the Federalist Papers established the acquisition of power by the decision of the population to “choose a body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of the country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be at least likely to sacrifice it to temporary and partial considerations”, the principle of democracy established on the Federalist Paper advocated for the recognition of power given by the popular decision of the people to attend the interest of the whole community. The principal development of the Republic was distributed in

When it was time for the ratification of the new Constitution, there were struggles faced by the state conventions of delegates elected by the people of each state and carried out 13 separate campaigns. It divided into two separate groups; Federalists and Antifederalists. The Federalists were those who supported the constitution proposed at the American Constitutional Convention of 1787 and preferred a strong national government. The Antifederalists, on the other hand, were those who favored strong state governments and a weak national government and were opponents of the Constitution proposed at the American Constitutional Convention of 1787.

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.

The Anti-Federalist party was made up of people who, for the most part, lived in the country. They were opposed to developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution, which, they claimed, threatened each free person’s liberites, until the authors included the Bill of Rights. (This granted individual rights of citizens. The Anti-Federalists wanted to write down these so that they could not be taken away from the people by the government like England had done.) Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power to prevent monarchies and dictatorships. Famous members of this party were Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Mercy Otis Warren, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and James Monroe. They favored the Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation had a few flaws: if a law was to pass, it would need a majority rule (9/13); it lacked a court system (nationally); and it was missing an executive branch. The Bill of Rights was appreciated because they wanted to make sure that individual rights could not be taken away. The Anti-Federalists may not have been a group that agreed with one another all the time, but as their opinions varied, more rights were thought of and protected. For example, one part of the group held the view that the sovereignty of states could be endangered

The real dilemma the Anti-Federalists had with the constitution, when the constitution was signed it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect citizen’s rights. The Anti- Federalist feared a national government would strip citizens of their individual rights. The Anti-Federalists did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary War.

Before the revision process, the first draft of the Constitution suffered from multiple debates. A group known as the Anti-Federalists were against it. Anti-Federalists usually were farmers, debtors, or other members of the

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.

In 1787, the weak form of government brought together by the Articles of Confederation was not doing its justice for the colonists. In the Articles of Confederation, there was only one branch of government, that one branch had no power over the states. This soon proved to be ineffective as a national government for the people. The National Congress had to ask states for financial support and was unable to enforce treaties made with other nations. To remedy this problem the Founding Fathers got together at the Philadelphia Convention to discuss a new plan for the government. The Founding Fathers decided not to revise the Articles of Confederation, but to create a completely new constitution. With so many great minds working on the same thing, it soon became apparent that there were opposing views on certain important issues. The issue causing the most controversy was whether or not a Bill of Rights should be included in the constitution. This issue was so hotly contested that the ratification of the constitution was delayed for a year. The two opposing views were encapsulated by two different parties, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists craved a weak central government with more power left to individual states. Their biggest argument was for the addition of a Bill of Rights to the constitution that would secure the people’s rights. Federalists wanted a stronger central government. The Articles of Confederation was a failure because the states held

When Americans left Great Britain they wanted to escape monarchy, and Americans won that battle. Now after coming from this monarchy the Federalists want a strong central government controlling everyone with weak state government. Where would the voice of the people go? Joining the Anti-Federalists is the proper way to go. Americans must unite in their objection to the proposed Constitution.