The Anti-Federalists

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist were groups of men trying to figure out to do with the Constitution. The Anti-Fed were mainly farmers and workers, they believed that the original US Constitution made the government too strong. The Federalist thought different, they felt as if we needed it to keep the US in place. This debate went on for a minute because they couldn’t meet in the middle.

After the American Revolution our nation was in major debt and suffering from an ecumenic depression throughout the colonies. The debt and other fiscal issues our nation was facing made some of the founding political members to want a more focused federal power. The opinions of two groups known as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were divided about the new proposed Constitution. The founding members known as the Federalists wanted a strong central government and weak state governments were in favor of keeping the newly proposed Constitution,whereas the opposing group of men were known as the Anti-Federalists were opposed to it. The Anti-Federalists had believed that the power should belong to the states and not the central government, and that the nation should keep the Articles of Confederation despite the fact that it had failed. In the time period of 1787-1788 the views and ideas of the Federalists would have been better than those of the Anti-Federalists for more than one reason.

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 the year 1787, early America, officials and delegates came together to form a constitution that would restore the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the attempt at creating a government for the newly independent America. But, it soon became clear that the document was not strong enough to govern America. Therefore, delegates who came to be known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists issued major arguments on the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Federalists were individuals who wished to unify the 13 states in negotiation, and

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

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 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

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

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.

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.

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 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

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 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.

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