The Importance Of Joining The Anti-Federalists

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]

After the Revolutionary War, Anti-Federalists preferred to entrust their security to state militias composed of and controlled by the people themselves. After the tyranny experienced at the hands of the British Army, it was feared that once a standing army were permitted to exist, its power would be absolute. After all, when the British Army arrived in Boston led by the perfidious General Gage who enforced martial law, disarmed the populace, seized and sent Patriots to England. Yet, the Continental Army did not impose a military dictatorship following the War of Independence, since it had at the head of the army a Patriot as well as a General, George Washington.

Then there were Anti- Federalists who believed that the bulk of duties should continue to be left to each state's own discretion, so that there would be no misrepresentation of the people it governed. It's left to say that neither side saw eye to eye, but would eventually reach a "compromise", the Federalists would institute their version of the Constitution which had a clear notion of Central Government and it's duties. The Anti-Federalists would receive an additional amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights), which would protect the personal liberties they were convinced a Central Government would revoke. Both sides seemed fairly satisfied with the outcome, though there was still fear of that popular tyranny from the outside. But the act of tyranny they should have feared was their own, for the Framer's motives for creating a new constitution was really protecting the few (the rights of the Wealthy) against the many (the non-elite).

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

Anti-federalists feared that this new government would closely resemble the tyranny of King George which the colonies had originally gone to war with for independence. This was expressed clearly by the delegate Patrick Henry in a speech he made in which he stated, “...out rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished… The rights of the conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press… are rendered insecure,” (Doc. 4). While these fears were certainly not unfounded it was clear that there were provisions that could be made to fully protect the rights of the people. This was done by the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution which rendered to the most prominent Anti-federalist argument moot.

It is June of 1789. Nearly a year has passed since the ratification of the Constitution. Imagine your children and wife waking you up and asking you what is for dinner. You are not sure what to say because you lost your farm due to paying off debts. This endures and then something tragic transpires. Your youngest child perishes. In the 1780s there were two diverse types of people with dissimilar lifestyles. These encompassed Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists were the minority of the population at the time and are on behalf of making a stronger unified government by making a new structure of government. Anti-Federalists make up the majority of the population and want to

The Federalist way is the future way. Over the last series of years, federalists have been arguing for a strong central government to rule the land. We strongly believe that the federalist agenda which consists of providing a strong central government by ratifying the constitution will greatly help the nation and be far better than the articles of confederation still in place. The goal of the Federalists is not to have an all controlling government, despite what many Anti-federalists want others to believe.

In the late 1700s, the United States had began to split into two factions: Federalists and Antifederalists. Factions are groups of citizens united by a common interest. The reasoning behind the differing views of how the government works across the world was best said by Locke “Men are equal in a natural sense, but society establishes many dimensions that are unequal”. (Barbour and Wright, 2017). In the states, Federalists wanted a strong central government while anti-federalists wanted a weak one. “The Georgians, for example, wanted a strong central authority to provide military protection for their huge, underpopulated state against the Creek Confederacy; Jerseymen and Connecticuters wanted to escape from economic bondage to New York; the Virginians hoped to establish a system which would give that great state its rightful place in the councils of the republic” (Roche, 800). The one thing they agreed on was having George Washington as president. George Washington tried to be a neutral leader of the United States and suggested for the states to stay together rather than divide into factions. “Thomas Jefferson is credited as stating: “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on””(Jamison, 2016).

Federalists felt that the U.S would be stronger if we had a central government and central bank. They believed that the individual regulatory of the government’s spending and supply of money would lead to national weakness they also didn’t want the bill of rights because they believed that citizens’ rights were already

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 Federalists main argument was a large republic would be vulnerable to aggression from foreign powers, internal unrest to the point of civil war absent a Federal Government. Federalists also believed they had an obligation to create a republican government versus a democratic government to protect the Federal government against such situation, because a republican governments elect representatives to make government decisions, republican governments are better equipped to make decision based on national interest, not state or local interest; while a democratic government would be more inclined to base decision on local interests because all citizens in a democratic government have a direct role in government decision making process.

Since the creation of American government, conflicting beliefs have arisen on how the government should be maintained. The building blocks of American government were created from ongoing conflict between the Federalists and the Anti Federalists. The Federalists advocated that the federal courts should have limited jurisdiction. At the same token, Federalists felt that federal courts were necessary to provide checks and balances on the power of the other two branches of government. Moreover, the Federalists believed the federal courts would protect citizens from governmental abuse, and solidifying the pretense that Americans are free individuals. On the posting spectrum stood the Anti Federalists. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution

Fears of a strong federal government encompass many Americans’ minds because of concern that a monarchy will, once again, control them like it once did under British rule. The Constitution, although a

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.

Federalism was incorporated in the constitution for many different reasons. One of the main reasons federalism was added was to prevent the new form of government in the United States after the Articles of Confederation of abusing its powers. Under federalism, state governments and the national governments would have specific limit, and rights. Some of the limits and rights on the national government were the right of habeus corpus, and control of interstate commerce. States could not tax imports and exports, could not impair obligation of contracts. Federalism was created to ensure both separate governments certain privileges. The Framers of the Constitution believed that the competition between both of the governments would create an effective limitation on each governments power.