Kimberly Paul Mr. Brandenburg 030817 Much like the Democrats and Republicans of today, Federalists and Anti-Federalists had diverging opinions on how the nation should be governed. Federalists had the utmost faith in the people and believed that they were the only ones capable of governing the nation fairly and efficiently. They were avid believers of a strong central government, a central bank, and an army. Federalist No. 39 states: “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it,” proving that they were in favor of central, unionized government. Anti-Federalists, however, wanted to stay with the British monarchy. At the time, there was a lot of animosity between the government and the people, and this viewpoint only added fuel to the fire. In a monarchy, the people are essentially given no say. Anti-federalists were scared that a strong central government would take away their rights and freedom. In addition to being against singular central government, they were also against the formation of an army. Brutus I clearly portrays their distaste for such measures: “It might …show more content…
I’m a big believer in taking power into your hands and that if you want something done right you have to do it yourself. They wanted an established government governed by the people while the Anti-Federalists desired to stay with the monarchy and never sought to seek change. Federalists wanted to separate the powers of the government into their respected branches, avoiding a corrupt government controlled only by the rich, the high class and the powerful. Federalists believed in a centralized government that would be run by the people as a whole and a government that was separated into branches. Anti-Federalists wanted just the opposite; these two completely opposing viewpoints caused a great deal of aggression and tension in the