Essay on The Framers: Federalists and Anti-Federalists

With the United States new found independence from Great Britain, its founding fathers realize from their historical experiences that a document of law needed to be crafted and established to preserve its new found independence, while maintaining order. However, the first document crafted by the founding fathers, the Articles of Confederation, did preserve the country new found independence but it did not maintain order. The Articles of Confederation described by many founding fathers to be a document that was crafted to satisfy needs of every state for its ratification, even when the document did not present a responsible democracy. The Articles of Confederation granted all national powers to the congress; however, it allowed each state

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 Articles of Confederation, Adopted by Congress on November 15, 1777, for all practical purposes was the United States’ first Constitution. Created to establish a bond between the newly formed states, “...the Articles purposely established a "constitution" that vested the largest share of power to the individual states” (Early America). This ensured that the government did not have the majority of power. “...the Articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws...allowing the states retained their "sovereignty, freedom and independence” (Early

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 Federalist Papers Ten and Fifty-One were the ideal papers written by Madison to support th¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬e ratification of the Constitution. Out of all the federalist papers, these are two of the most important federalist papers. So what were the federalist papers? They were 85 essays written by three gentlemen: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay that explained particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. Alexander Hamilton goes on to be the first treasury secretary, James Madison goes on to be the fourth president and John Jay the first chief justice in US history. So what was the purpose of these papers? Well, they were written to gain support for the US Constitution, especially in New York. While many people might see it as inevitable, the Constitution was a revolutionary step. Because of the revolutionary nature of the new constitution, arguments were necessary to rationalize it. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were the states critical to the success or failure of the Constitution. Of these four states, New York by far was the state where the success of the constitution was in the most doubt. Quickly, Alexander Hamilton decided that a massive propaganda campaign was necessary in New York, more than in any other state. So with the help of James Madison and John Jay, he published several essays in different newspapers in New York. There is really little

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

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.

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States was neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held between those who supported the Constitution, the Federalists, and those who were against it, the Anti-Federalists. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a centralized republic. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect the Constitution would have on state power, the power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create, and the issue of a standing army. One of the most important concerns of the

The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

For the Constitution to become the nationally followed series of rule, nine of thirteen states would have had to approve it. To gain this approval, the people of America had to be convinced that a stronger government was needed to create a successful country; while being assured that this government would not take away their liberties and would not give power to only those who were more privileged than others. Small states, who approved the unity, were the first to ratify the Constitution unlike large states who found the individual governments adequate.

The Articles of Confederation was the United State’s first constitution, it was written in an effort to unite the states after the American Revolution and served as a blueprint for the modern constitution. In order for the Articles to become official, they had to be approved by all thirteen colonies. Although Congress sent the Articles of Confederation to the states around the end of 1777 to become ratified, they were not officially adopted until March 1, 1781. Under these Articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes. The American people feared a strong national government and as a result of this, the Articles of Confederation were specifically designed to be weak in the sense that each state maintains its own sovereignty and all rights to govern themselves, with the except of the rights exclusively granted to Congress. Since the Articles lacked many necessary components to keep a nation properly structured, they were eventually revised into the constitution we recognize today. Although, the Articles of Confederation seemed as though it only contained weaknesses, within the document, many strengths and accomplishments were made. Overall, the Articles of Confederation were proven to be both efficient and non-efficient during the time period they were in effect.

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

My thesis is that the plan was to amend the articles of confederation, but there was too much wrong with it, because it gave too much federal power. The Federalist wanted a strong central government, and the Anti-federalist wanted more power in the states. The articles of confederation are the original constitution of the US, ratified in 1781, which was replaced by the US Constitution in 1789(p.48-49). The Federalist are the supporters of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Anti-Federalist are the opponents of ratification of the U.S Constitution in 1787 and 1788. The biggest compromise that was made would be the federalist including agreeing to include bill of rights in the Constitution. We need a new constitution because of inequality because in the 1st amendment it say there is freedom of religion and speech, expression, assembly and the right of petition. But I doesn’t give freedom on access. Also, because it was outdated was written in 1787. The concerns the Anti-Federalist had were on Article II of the Constitution. Article II “established an entirely new concept in government—an elected executive power.”(p.575) Also the Constitution did not equally divide all power with the three branches of government. The Federalist didn’t have any concerns, but what they wanted was for the Constitution to pass. Another thing they wanted was a strong government. The plans that were involved with the compromise were the

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.

After the Revolution, the States adopted their own constitutions, many of which contained a Bill of Rights. The Americans still faced the challenge of creating a central government for their new nation. In 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained their “sovereignty, freedom and independence,” while the national government was kept weak and inferior. Over the next few years it became evident that the system of government that had been chosen was not strong enough to completely settle and defend the frontier, regulating trade, currency and commerce, and organizing thirteen states into one union.