More handpicked essays just for you.
Battle between federalist and anti federalists
The differences between federalists and anti
Difference between the anti-federalists and the federalists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The anti federalists were mainly apprehensive about the Constitution, because they favored strong state governments and felt that the Constitution
The Anti-Federalists thought that one specific set of rules for the whole population would not fully represent everyone’s rights. Furthermore, the Anti-Federalists thought that if a government took place far from the people, they would no longer represent
The argument between the Federalists and the Antifederalists principally centre on the Artivles of Confederation-Consitution. The Federalists and the Antifederalists have thier interpretions wheather the fedel government necessarliy exits or not. The Federalists believe that the relationship between fedel government and fifty states governments is stable and helpful. In contrast, the Antifederalists oppose this political struture and democratic goals, so that they think that the exitence of fedel government suppose to get corrupt. On the other hand, the Federalists and the Antifederalists also have different views about slaveries.
They were passionate that the Constitution created a strong executive authority and that the president could easily become king by being reelected pver and over again. They also wanted a Bill of Rights specifically protecting citizens from the national government. Anti-federalists wanted fewer limits on political participation by all citizens. They didnt want the Constitution to go into effect, hoping that nine states wouldnt ratify it. Federalist and Anti-federalist depended on Virginia's vote since it was a big powerful state and smaller states would follow behind.
(This goes before the main argument) The main Argument between the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist was about the amount of control/authority that the government should have. Though the people were now the governing body there was not much protection and liberties that they were entitled to. James Madison did not want to risk the constitution not being ratified; he drafted the Bill of Rights. Even though the Anti-Federalist Failed to prevent the ratification of the U.S. Constitution led to what we know as the Bill of Rights, the ten amendments that protected the
The Federalists wanted a strong national government to provide order and protect the rights of the people. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists, which included many patriots, such as Patrick Henry and John Hancock, opposed ratification because the Constitution shifted the balance of power
Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views in the Constitution because of their differences; but they also had many similarities that ended up leading to the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists and Federalist had many similarities. Both were supportive of this new country and knew that they needed a government. They both wanted the congress to have power to create war and to create treaties.
Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.
The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.
Overall their main goal was to have a Constitution. The anti-federalists were the group that disagreed with having a strong national government, as they wanted a strong state government for their own benefits and a weaker national government. John Hancock was one of the main supporters in keeping a powerful state government, or what they thought was one. The main supporters of this atrocious idea were mostly dominated by the farmers and people living in rural areas.
The Federalist believed that once the Federal Government had more power the problems with the nation's debt would be handled better (Diffen.com, n.d.). The anti-federalist was against the ratification of the Constitution and did not want the government to have more control over them (Diffen.com, 2016). They were also against having a president out of fear of tyranny and preferred individual states to handle their affairs (Diffen.com, 2016). They did not feel comfortable with ratifying the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added (Diffen.com).
They were scared that the federalists' idea of creating separate state and federal government would take all the states rights and it would not allow for any states to make their own decisions. They also saw that the states agreed with them and saw this as an issue. To fix this, the federalists separated everyone into smaller factions and the factions got split and that's how they claimed the power would be more even and equal throughout the states. The federalists tried to make it better but made it worse and didn't fix it whatsoever. The states' rights became no stronger not weaker than they already
The Federalist Papers v Democracy Were the Federalist papers anti-democratic? Were the founders against the conception of democracy as we now understand it, or was it an issue of definition assignment? What did the terms Republican, and democratic mean to the founders? Knowing what definitions certain words held during the founding era is essential to understanding the thought process of our forefathers. Another issue to consider is whether or not the Constitution itself is democratic.
When the Articles of Confederation failed to organize the citizens and the economy of America its citizens decided to advocate for a different form of government, that arose in the creation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. As a new form of government was presented the fear that the American Revolution had brought upon the colonies lead to the creation of two different political groups the Federalist and Anti- federalist that stood for those who feared the government and those who believed that the government should be stronger. Based on the Federalist papers I believe that the Anti- federalist had a better argument as they pushed for the protection of individual rights and the limitation of the power of the government. Federalist
On the other hand, Federalists wanted a
