Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalist vs anti federalist issues
The federalist/anti federalist argument paper
Main arguments of anti federalists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Federalist vs anti federalist issues
The Constitution of the United States was created on September 17, 1787, but not everyone agreed that it should become the law of the land. Authors of the Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, published The Federalist Papers to promote ratification of the Constitution by the States. The Federalist were committed to ensuring the Constitution was ratified. However, they were not without opposition. The Anti-Federalist opposed the Constitution and believed that it would cause the new union to fail. Anti-Federalist were politicians and businessmen such as George Mason, Patrick Henry and John Winthrop, but there were many farmers and common people among the group. Their primary objections to the Constitution was that it weakened the State governments, that it lacked a Bill of Rights and that it protected the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans. State Governments Anti-Federalist believed that a strong federal government would weaken or destroy the current state governments. As summarized in one Anti-Federalist essay, most Americans believed the Articles of the Confederation simply needed to be revised and that “not one man in ten thousand in the United States, till within these ten or twelve days, had an idea that the old ship was to be destroyed” (The Federal Farmer, 1787). They believed that the Constitution was not needed and as stated by George Mason (1788) that it was “calculated to annihilate totally the state governments” (pp.1). Mason believed that two government could not coexist and that one would destroy the other. He also warned that individuals would not submit to taxation by two governments. Federalist believed that a strong federal government was essential to establish foreign policy a... ... middle of paper ... ...protect the Liberty of all citizens that any State would be able to do alone. Conclusion Of the 55 delegates sent to the Constitutional Convention, only 39 signed the completed document. Some did not even stay through the entire event because they felt it was headed in a direction that they could not support. These men had different reasons for their objections, some of which are discussed in this paper, but most importantly, they felt that the Constitution would threaten Liberty rather than secure it. The ratification of the Constitution was an essential first step to secure and stabilize this new national, but the voices and views of the Anti-Federalist were also very important. The first amendments to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, were due in much part to satisfy those voices and established many of the rights that we still hold dear today.
The Federalist papers were for the constitution being ratified. They were written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. They consisted of 85 articles and essays. Most of them were published between 1787 and 1788 although; the author’s names were kept a secret until 1818. Hamilton decided to sign the papers “Publius” to keep his name anonymous. Hamilton was the first to publish an essay and soon picked Madison and Jay to assist him. To their surprise, the Federalist papers influenced many of the New York people to vote for having the constitution ratified. On the contrary, the Anti-Federalist papers did not agree entirely with the new Constitution. They were written by many different authors. Although, some of the more popular Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Sam Adams, etc. They were also 85 Anti-Federalist papers. Much like the federalist papers, they Anti-Federalists adopted the name “Brutus”.
One of the most important concerns of the Anti-Federalists were concerned that the new form of government would strip the states of their own power. The Anti-Federalists feared by combining the previously independent states. under one government that, ".the states, once sovereign. would retain but a shadow of their former power. "(Main 120).
After the Constitution was written, the new born nation was immediately split into two political sides, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification. Federalists, southern planters or people that tended to hold interest in trade, advocated a strong executive. On the other hand, anti-federalists, back country people or people involved in business but not in the mercantile economy, opposed the ratification of the constitution. The two sides, after much debate, were able to come to a compromise after the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution.
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.
One argument that the Anti-Federalists had against the forming of a new constitution was that they claimed it would “lead to a new consolidation system of government” and the leaders of Philadelphia intended “such a system and that the consolidated system would in the end destroy republican government and individual liberty as well as the independence of the states.” (Lewis 2) The Federalists feared that the government would have so much power it would be abused. They were constantly speculating about what would happen to the Unit...
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
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
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
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
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.
The Constitution had to be ratified by the states before it went into full effect; however, states had different ideas and hopes for their new government, so a national debate over ratifying the constitution sparked. In general, there were two big parties that had opposing ideas; the federalists supported the constitution, and the anti-federalists did not support this fairly new document. Additionally, the constitution needed 9 out of 13 states to sign off the Constitution before it became official, but in order for the Articles of Confederation to be amended there had to be a united consent within the nation. The major fears produced by the writing and ratification of the United States constitution stemmed from the difference between classes; for instance, the “common man” had different views and opinions compared to the “elite man.”
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
With the states newly found sovereignty there quickly became disagreements to whether or not the Bill of Rights should be ratified. Federalists sought to ratify the Bill of Rights and in favor of a strong national government for control while the antifederalists opposed the ratification and strongly believed in state governments control so it was closer to the people. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay all favored ratification and therefore “wrote a series of compelling arguments known as the Federalist Papers,” which eventually led to a compromise being made that the “basic rights” of the people would be explicitly stated in the English Bill of Rights as an extra layer of protection so the government could not run all over the colonies. After many discussions and arguments, ten amendments of the Bill were ratified in order to limit the national governments grasp over the civil liberties of
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.