More handpicked essays just for you.
The dispute between the federalist and the anti-federalist
American life 1700s
The dispute between the federalist and the anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Various parts of the Constitution affected people back then as well as today’s modern day. Back in the late 1700’s, the United States were still trying to strengthen the newly formed government. The supporters of the Constitution, The Federalists, believed in having a strong government, whereas the Anti-Federalist did not support the constitution and believed that the government replicated a tyranny. Although there were supporters and non-supporters, American leaders used the Constitution as a foundation to create a stable and strong government. One specific portion of the Constitution is referred to as the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” which is Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. According to the GMC Electronic Library article “Federalist
The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
Throughout the American Revolution, the colonists were completely resentful towards their British 'king'. They yearned for their own government, and to finally set themselves apart from George III's rule and his legislation. When the Articles of Confederation were mandated, the expectation was to provide the colonies with a stable government. The Articles were then replaced by the Constitution, which had corresponding values. Essentially the document was written to salvage and improve the new government. The Constitution did many positive things for the nation, and was the perfect remedy for the failures of of the Articles. However, it is manifest that the authors of the document were not as honorable as they may have been assumed to be. How they drafted the document and the bias they have put into it is still greatly effects us. The Constitution is a counter-revolution because it contradicts the fails of the Articles, and is evident that some authors had more self-beneficial and narrow mindsets.
Some historical circumstances surrounding the issue of the ratification of the Constitution was weakness of the new government under the Articles of Confederation which led to the Constitutional Convention. Members of Congress believed that the Articles of Confederation, the first government of the United States, needed to be altered while others did not want change. This desired Constitution created a huge dispute and argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The people who supported the new Constitution, the Federalists, began to publish articles supporting ratification. As stated in document 2 John Jay (Federalist) had many arguments to support ratification of the Constitution. One argument John Jay used was, with the ratification of the Constitution, he says, “…Our people free, contented and united…” The Antifederalists had numerous arguments they used to oppose the ratification of the Constitution. The Antifederalists believed that a free republic wouldn’t be able to long exist over a country of the great extent of these states.
During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed in an all too dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.
Federalists such as Hamilton supported ratification. But Anti-Federalists, who feared that the document gave too much power to the federal government, worked to convince the states to reject it. Hamilton believed that the ratification was necessary because giving more power to the central government was essential for the nation's survival. In The Federalist Papers Hamilton sets the stage for those that would follow, entitling that "The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty." The essay...
The ratification controversy pitted supporters of the Constitution, who claimed the name "Federalists," against a loosely organized group known as "Antifederalists." The Antifederalists denounced the Constitution as a radically centralizing document that would destroy American liberty and betray the principles of the Revolution. The Federalists urged that the nation's problems were directly linked to the frail, inadequate Confederation and that nothing short of the Constitution would enable the American people to preserve their liberty and independence, the fruits of the Revolution.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
The Anti-Federalists were led by George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Mercy Otis Warren, Luther Martin, Robert Yeates, and George Clinton. The biggest flaw the Anti-Federalists found in the new constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights. The House of Representatives was the only group of governmental officials elected directly by the people and the Anti-Federalists believed the government is too far removed from the people to care for the people it's representing. Another concern of the Anti Federalists was how the government's powers were so vague and general that can give almost an infinite amount of power. The "necessary and proper" clause was one example of the government's vague powers, which gives the legislative body the ability to make all laws "necessary and proper." The new constitution did not include anything about how to stop the government from infringing on the rights it did not mention. This meant that the government could violate the freedom of speech, re...
A primary document, it was a message for the Federalists and to the American public in general. Although they did not fully support the Articles of Confederation, they did not want a new Constitution to be written. These people were concerned about how little freedom they would have if the federal government got more power. Because of this, they are against the beliefs of the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists are also concerned about how the national government could abuse its power if given a higher authoritative role in the revised Constitution. In order to show the concern, the authors write, “the legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; there is no limitation to this power..." The Anti-Federalists were afraid that allowing the national government to have so much power would be like living under Britain 's authority all over again. This would render the American Revolution pointless, they believed. They supported the state governments in having authority to tax, govern, and to have independence from the central government in doing so. They believe that if the central government starts taxing the people, the state governments would not be able to raise money
The formation of the United States Constitution in 1787 led the people of the United States to divide into two groups: the Federalists and the Anti Federalists. They both agreed in the some political thoughts as well as disagreed. Most distinguishable, the Federalists favored the central government, whereas the Antifederalists opposed it. In order to settle the new country after the Revolutionary War, the Hamilton Federalists best represent the ideals of America during the 19th century because it centralized politic, and individuals’ rights, and economic.
The debate between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists is important because it provides us insight on how the United States Constitution was built and how it was changed. A reason why this debate is so important to understand is because there are people today who don’t agree with the government having so much power. Once one understands what started the disagreement between the two groups of politicians, one will see how both sides sealed the deal for our constitution that we still follow today. I have decided to speak about the Anti-Federalists first because this group of men stood out to me as being very intelligent, creative and brave but unfortunately their plan to help Americans wasn’t successful. Patrick Henry and George Mason, some of the few influential figures, were all about “supporting the American needs”. Originally called the “Federalists” in 1781, they were the first American National Government called the Articles of Confederation, which gave all thirteen states’ government more authority and freedom. The Federalists main concerns were to make sure Americans kept their liberty and states become one Union. The Anti-Federalists main concerns were to make sure Americans had their freedom but have separate Unions. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were different,
Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed the stronger federal government. The felt states had rights, which the central government threatened to trample. In their eyes the constitution is a tyrannical document without a Bill of Rights. The constitution granted too much power over taxation to the Federal government.
They felt that a strong powerful central government was necessary especially after the failed Articles of Confederation. “The framers of constitution, the federalists, argued that the common people were self-interested and passionate creatures who should not be entrusted with all reins of government.” (By the People, page 10) Federalists did not agree with antifederalists and argued that they were just thinking of themselves and not the entire nation. They also believed that antifederalists were being fearful for no reason as national government had powers granted by the constitution which prohibited them from any sort of corruption. It was a limited government where federal government cannot do whatever they wanted, they had limitations under constitution. They also highlighted the fact that the constitution separated basic powers of government into three equal branches. This separation of power gave balance and limited the chances of tyranny. They also mentioned the benefits of checks and balances. They argued that central government would not be able to misuse it’s power as each branch could check or limit the other branches. They also responded to Antifederalists fear of strong federal court by saying that federal courts had limited jurisdiction as some power was shared with local courts. They believed that strong federal court was a necessity so judicial branch of government could do it’s part of checks and balances on executive and legislative branches of government. Federalists provided all their arguments by writing federalists papers. These papers are written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay supporting their beliefs and arguments through 85 articles and essays. These federalists papers were very influential as they were able to gain support to ratify the constitution. Even though other states pro constitution North Carolina and Rhode Island held out until Bill of Rights
The constitution is our very best defense against tyranny. Tyranny is when one person or group of people is in total control. The constitution is a written set of rules that everyone has to live by. Our constitution was written at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in May of 1787. How does the constitution guard against tyranny? It guards against tyranny with Federalism, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and with the Big State Little State Compromise.