Pros And Cons Of Anti Federalists

342 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: American independence essay intro

Between the fall (September) of 1787 and spring (May) of 1790 , the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, PA presented a ratification platform to the American public. The proposed Constitution marked a clear separation from the Articles of Confederation, which created a federal “league of friendship” between the thirteen independent states. The newly proposed Constitution would make the United States have a stronger national presence to all the states rather than a loose confederation of states. The proposed Constitution, and the change created one of the greatest political splits and debates in history. These debates created an anti-federalist and federalist movement. The Anti-federalists on one side objecting to the …show more content…

This group of supporters was mainly compiled up of farmers, share croppers, and tradesmen. The Anti-Federalists believed that each state should have their own independent government. They were led by Patrick Henry and George Mason. Anti-federalists argued that the new Constitution would eventually lead to the disbanding state governments, the consolidation of the Union into one national government, and as a result would put an end to all forms of self-rule in the states. In debating their arguments, the Anti-Federalists often relied on the expressions and ideas from the Revolutionary War era. This was an example of a centralized national (government) power with an overbearing monarch. They claimed that the United States Constitution represented a step away from the democratic goals of the American Revolution and a step towards monarchy and aristocracy. The Anti-Federalists feared that the Constitution would take away Congress’s power and give it all to the president. Many Anti-Federalists supported a type of government known as agrarian republicanism. This type of government is centered around a society of farmers who participate in local

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

    835 Words  | 2 Pages

    The leaders of the anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry from Virginia, George Mason from Virginia, Richard Henry Lee from Virginia, James Monroe from Virginia, George Clinton from New York, Samuel Adams from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts, Luther Martin from Maryland, and Samuel Chase from Maryland. The anti-Federalist leaders were men who had their careers and reputations already established. The anti-Federalists were the losers in the Constitution debate. They had accepted their defeat very well. They did not attempt to create problems and start fights or wars. Instead some leaders became well-known leaders in the government. James Monroe was the fifth president. George Clinton, along with Elbridge Gerry became vice presidents. Samuel Chase was in the Supreme Court. The anti-Federalists brought awareness to the subject matter of giving more power to the government and how dangerous it could be. They thought the Constitution could be improved with a bill of rights. They brought awareness to why our government needed to include a bill of rights. They wanted one to protect the rights of the people and the states. The anti-Federalists found the ratification process unreliable. They were correct because the Articles of Confederation stated it being

    Read More

  • The Similarities and Differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers

    882 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers played a major role in US History. They dealt with many problems in politics. The papers were made after the Revolutionary war. People started to worry that the government would not last under the Articles of Confederation. Without having a backup plan just yet, some delegates met up and created the Constitution. The constitution had to be ratified before it became the rule of all the land. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers discuss whether the constitution should be approved or not. Some things Anti-Federalist and Federalists argued was a strong national government, a standing army, and whether or not the constitution should be ratified and why.

    Read More

  • The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists

    664 Words  | 2 Pages

    who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.

    Read More

  • Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Anti-Federalists

    853 Words  | 2 Pages

    Our powerpoint states that the Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand, did not agree. The powerpoint mentions that they attacked every area of the Constitution, but two of its features attracted the most criticism. One was the extremely increased powers of the central government. The second included the lack of “bill of rights” that would have provided necessary liberties including freedom of speech and religion.

    Read More

  • Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

    348 Words  | 1 Pages

    From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

    610 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the final copy of the Constitution, many compromises were made between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The main goal of the Federalists’ was to ratify and publish the Constitution; however, the unanimous ratification by all thirteen states needed to publish the Constitution set their progress back, as the Anti-Federalists had many issues with the standing draft of the Constitution. The primary topic of discourse between the two factions was over the addition of the Bill of Rights. Another topic of contention held was the Anti-Federalists’ demands for full and fair representation in the government. Their argument was that the Constitution would give an overwhelming amount of power to the federal government, and leave the state and local governments deprived of power. They feared that the federal government would be too absent in governing to represent the citizen, as a

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Anti Federalists

    1505 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Anti-Federalist Papers documented the political background in which the Constitution was born. The Anti-Federalist saw threats to rights and authorizations in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. A central government is the political authority that governs the entire nation. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. The Anti-Federalist proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. Anti-federalists continued to view a large and powerful central government as leading to autocracy, appealed to the actions of the British king and Parliament to demonstrate their point. Anti-Federalists

    Read More

  • Ratification of the Constitution and the Louisiana Purchase

    551 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Hamilton Argues Against A Bill Of Rights

    994 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Federalists and Anti-Federalists

    1659 Words  | 4 Pages

    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 documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.

    Read More

  • Philosophers Of The Federalist Papers

    1120 Words  | 3 Pages

    More and more states became interested in these changes and decided to meet in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. On this date the Constitutional Convention was held and the U.S Constitution was presented as a new plan of government that would completely replace the old system. This new plan called for a strong central government that would have highest authority on legislation and implementing laws. The federalist papers supported the choice to replace the Articles of Confederation and advocated for a strong central government. They persuaded citizens that this new form of government would build a stronger national unity and it would provide greater protection overall.

    Read More

  • Essay On Ratification Of The Constitution

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Anti-Federalists: Patrick Henry, George Mason, And George Clinton

    361 Words  | 1 Pages

    Anti-Federalists are a group of people that are opposed to the creation of a stronger federal government. A few anti-federalists that you may know are: Patrick Henry, George Mason, and George Clinton. Both Henry and Mason come from Virginia while Clinton is in New York. Patrick was an American attorney, planter and politician who became known as an orator during the movement of independance. George was also a Virginia planter and politician while also being a delegate to the U.S Constitutional Convention. Then there was Clinton who was a vice president at one point and a governor at another.

    Read More

  • Drafting the Constitution

    2555 Words  | 6 Pages

    By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalist Side

    757 Words  | 2 Pages

    The main issue that went wrong with my debate was how logical I found the other side. I was put on the anti-federalist side, however I believed the federalist side made more sense. This made it difficult to debate the anti-federalist side and to have counter the good points Sophia made (which were really good). However, I still believe I was able to counter her arguments well as I knew the anti-federalist side and I understood what they believed. It definitely would have been easier to argue the federalist side, but sometimes it is better to get a challenge and argue something you don’t necessarily know all about or agree with.

    Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Anti Federalists

Open Document