The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

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-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civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail."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

I was surprised that I actually agreed with what the Anti-federalist had to say. I found it to be more dense and harder then the federalist number ten. Once I found a good source and was able to understand what the points they are trying to make were, I found that I liked the views they stand for. I liked the idea of more representatives instead of just one for the whole nation. If each state had their own representative they would be able to better represent the interests of those people. Also they wouldn’t have to do so much damage control if each state was taking care of by their own specific representative. If each state had control over whom and what they taxed, they could better control the economy of that state. The people would feel

The main argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they thought that the government would be created would be too powerful and they would just be paving the way for another monarchy like the one that they had just fought so hard to free themselves from in England. They also wanted to add a Bill of Rights before ratifying the constitution and not after. The Pros are that the document had stated to provide protection against the cruel and unlawful act of ruling the american colonies.Freedom of movement which is under Article IV. This section explained the security and perpetual interactions and partnership among the citizens of the emerged nation. The document created a bridge to connect the individual States

n the history of the United States, the Anti-federalists were the individuals who opposed the implementation of a central federal government which would seek to oversee different operations in the country along with the ratification of the constitution. Instead, they advocated that power ought to remain within the hands of the local and state governments. Conversely, the Federalists advocated for a stronger government that would oversee the operations of all states. They also wanted the ratification of the existing constitution in order to help the government in managing its debts along with the tensions that were developing in particular states. The Federalist movement was formed by Alexander Hamilton, and it functioned as the first

The Anti-Federalist Papers recognized that the people one in power “can seldom or never resume it again but by force”. The establishment of a single law that would be equally applied to all states and where the power would be vested in a central government represented, for the anti-federalists, the condition of the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States. “Nor the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given”. Anti-Federalist Papers established their fear on having a judicial branch that would overrule over the state courts without attending to the necessity of the local people, as well, the congress would be able to limit the decisions of the national state if it would affect the well-being of the whole nation, again, limiting the purpose of the national government on the pursuit of happiness of its own

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 Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

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 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 Federalists and Republicans became the first political parties in the United States in the election of 1796. The Federalists and the Republicans clashed an array of times throughout the early national period, over issues relating to the future of the United States. The Federalist Party consisted of Alexander Hamilton and his supports, and favored a commercial economy and strong central government. The Republican Party was led by Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, they were in favor of an agrarian economy and states’ rights. The problems prevalent in the United States led to each parties supporters to take varying positions on these issues.

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

Richard Henry Lee is another Anti-Federalist who displays his views throughout his article. Lee discusses some arguments, but the main point of his article is about how the Constitution came to be and the problems associated with it. He says "by making tender, suspension, and paper money laws, have given just cause of uneasiness to creditors. By these and other causes, several orders of men in the community have been prepared, by degrees, for a change in government" (Lee in Unger, p. 119). Lee believes that if these things had not occurred, the idea of a new government would have never been thought of. Another point that Lee makes is about the delegates that were chosen to go to the convention. He says that the intentional purpose of the convention was to amend

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.