The Anti-Federalists had many views that were different than those of the Federalists. One the differences that seems to be important, is who they view as “The people”. The Anti-Federalists believed that common people should be able to be active participants of their government; this involvement includes having a say in the laws that are made and the protection of everyday working class people. This common man involvement is reinforced by the fact that the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep government more local, by having strong state governments. Using Rogers Smith’s Civic Ideals as a foundation, this essay illustrates that the view of the Anti-Federalists is that the United States of America is combined of many different people, and that representation should be based on these differences rather than just the elite population.
In the late 1780s there where a variety of men that would need to be represented by the government. These men included everyone from aristocratic land owners, to merchants, to hard laborers. The Anti-Federalists knew that all of these men needed to be represented in the government so that there were no laws made with the intention to harm a certain group’s way of life. In Federal Farmer Letter VII it is said that “Each order must have a share in the business of legislation actually and efficiently” (Hammond 559). By each class of men having an active role in their government, a process is created to able to prevent one class from overruling others for their own benefit. This is important to the Anti-Federalists because they think that each type of man should be considered equal. This hunger for equality leads us to see that the Anti-Federalists believe that all men should be able to be part of government wit...
... middle of paper ...
...wer] need a people that imagines itself in ways that make leadership by those aspirants appropriate” (6). It is apparent that the elite class of men would not represent all classes of men in an appropriate matter. The Federalists’ solution to this was to only have the elites be able to elect representative; the Anti-Federalists saw the need to point out that this representation would not be for the common good of the country and its citizens. The works of the Anti-Federalists shows that they were interested in the idea of having all types of men be represented in government.
Works Cited
Smith, Rogers M. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven:
Yale UP, 1997. Print.
Hammond, Scott J., Kevin R. Hardwick, and Howard L. Lubert, eds. Classics of American
Political and Constitutional Thought. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2007. Print.
who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.
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.
Both groups came to agreement and agreed that there needed to be a stronger authority requiring an independent salary to function. They both also agreed that they needed to raise safeguards against the tyranny. The anti-Federalists would not agree to the new Constitution without the “Bill of Rights.” The Federalists ended up including the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of people. It reassured the anti-Federalists the government could not abuse their power by taking it out on the people. The Federalists included the Bill of Rights to get the anti-Federalists votes and support in the Constitution to actually get it
The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals such as all men were born equal (even though most of these men owned slaves), but their opinions about the role of government were different. Both parties had their own visions of how a new government would function and how the Constitution would support the government being proposed. Many argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government with very limited power. Specifically, the amount of power or the absence of power of a central government was the main disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As a result, the Federalists and Anti-federalists argued about the ratification of a new constitution, which would give the central government more power.
In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis, the author relates the stories of six crucial historic events that manage to capture the flavor and fervor of the revolutionary generation and its great leaders. While each chapter or story can be read separately and completely understood, they do relate to a broader common theme. One of Ellis' main purposes in writing the book was to illustrate the early stages and tribulations of the American government and its system through his use of well blended stories. The idea that a republican government of this nature was completely unprecedented is emphasized through out the book. Ellis discusses the unique problems that the revolutionary generation experienced as a result of governing under the new concept of a democracy. These problems included- the interpretation of constitutional powers, the regulation of governmental power through checks and balances, the first presidential elections, the surprising emergence of political parties, states rights vs. federal authority, and the issue of slavery in a otherwise free society. Ellis dives even deeper into the subject by exposing the readers to true insight of the major players of the founding generation. The book attempts to capture the ideals of the early revolutionary generation leaders and their conflicting political viewpoints. The personalities of Hamilton, Burr, Adams, Washington, Madison, and Jefferson are presented in great detail. Ellis exposes the reality of the internal and partisan conflict endured by each of these figures in relation to each other. Ellis emphasizes that despite these difficult hurdles, the young American nation survived its early stages because of its great collection of charismatic leaders and their ability to ...
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.
There were men like Herman Husband who despised wealth, gluttony, extravagance, and luxury, and as such, he made sure that he educated as many “ordinary people” as he could, as often as he could, about the dangers of the ordinary people giving up their power. On the other side of the token, there were the framers who would achieve an added benefit from having a centralized government, which may be why they advocated so heavily in favor of a federal government. Some of the Founding Fathers owned paper securities that were depreciating themselves almost to nothing due to the war and America 's inability to repay her debts. By creating and enforcing a centralized government who would pay off debts, their paper securities would be back on the rise and of course increase their wealth at the expense of others (Countryman 169). Although the Anti-Federalists were able to obtain almost all of what they asked for between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the most important thing – a small local government – was now forgone in favor of the federal
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
The political views of the federalist and the republicans towards the government of the United States of America were different. The republicans stressed equality of rights among citizens allowing people to govern themselves. The federalists believed in a stronger government one in which was sovereign and had superior power over the local governments.
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
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.