The Anti-Federalists

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.

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

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.

Each state was to hold a convention. The Constitution would go into effect once it was ratified by nine states. Supporters of the new Constitution called themselves Federalists because they favored a strong, federal, or national, government. At the heart of the Federalist position was the need for a stronger central government. Opponents of ratification were called Antifederalists. Antifederalists were not all united in their reasons for opposing the Constitution. Some of their most frequent arguments included weakening the states, no bill of rights, and a president that could very easily become a king. The Antifederalists believed that the Constitutional Convention had gone too

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.

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these

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

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

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

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.

When the United States declared itself a sovereign nation, the Articles of Confederation were drafted to serve as the nations first Constitution.Under these Articles, the states held most of the power; but due to an almost absent centralized government, colonists were ill-equipped to deal with such practices as regulating trade both between states and internationally, levying taxes, solving inter-state disputes, negotiating with foreign nations, and most importantly enforcing laws under the current notion of "Congress". Realizing that there were several deficiencies in the current system of self-government, the states appointed delegates to ratify the situation and come up with a way to attain the aforementioned practices they needed to

The US Constitution was written in 1787, it was later ratified in 1788 then taken in 1789. Supporters of the ratification of the Constitution where known to be the Federalists on the contrary those opposing of the ratification of the Constitution where Anti-Federalists. The immediate problem was not just excepting the Constitution but also for a concern of the government. The Anti-Federalists started a movement due to opposing of the Bill of Rights not being in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists did not want a strong central federal government. They saw the constitution to be too powerful, possibly as a potential threat.

During the ratification of the Constitution, there were major debates surrounding it, where people had to argue against one another on a certain subject, and then compromise of how each law should be set out for the states. One of the major debates was during The Federalist Papers, where the anti-federalist did not want to continue with the constitution, because in their opinion, it would place in more power in the central government, as a result will be corrupted. The Federalist however wanted to continue on with the original constitution. This led to few parts of the states to be separated on the majority of federalist and anti-federalists. However, this led to the Constitution could not be completed and as a result in 1861, to start a civil

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

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there were a number of opposing opinions about how best to resolve the problems with the Articles of Confederation, but ultimately, the fifty-five delegates present at the convention fell into one of two groups: federalists or anti-federalists. The Federalists wanted to dispose of the Articles of Confederation altogether and ratify the Constitution in order to better unite the thirteen states and form a stronger central government. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists opposed this new Constitution on the basis that it gave too much power to the federal government, so they supported amending the Articles of Confederation instead of drafting new legislation. While those who did not want to ratify the Constitution were grouped together under the title of “Anti-Federalist”, delegates had different reasons for holding this stance; one faction believed that stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states, another thought this new government would too closely model the despotism of Great Britain, and another feared that this new government would threaten individual liberties (The Great). One particular section of the proposed Constitution that Anti-Federalists were concerned with was Article III that outlined the judicial power of the United States and advocated a strong central court system. Anti-Federalists feared too much power would be granted to the Supreme Court of the United States and limit the power of state courts.