More handpicked essays just for you.
Constitution a controversial document
Arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists
Federalists vs anti federalists summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Constitution a controversial document
The ratification debate of 1788 pitted Federalists against Antifederalists over adoption of the proposed Constitution. Through the Eyes of John Patrick Coby "Raising the Eleventh Pillar: This essay will examine the key differences between the Federalist and Antifederalist positions in regard to the 1788 ratification debate and their positions on key issues debated. Federalists backed the proposed Constitution from Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. They envisioned a powerful central government which could correct the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. Federalist arguments argued for a united nation capable of regulating commerce, maintaining national defense, and ensuring economic prosperity.
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.
The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.
During the time period of the late eighteenth century the United States were seeking a new governing platform that would support the ideals present in the American Revolution. Principles such as freedom, independence and natural rights were among the driving forces in shaping the constitution. Throughout the creation of the document many disputes occurred, the Federalists wanted a strong central government with unchallenged authority while the Anti Federalists fought for personal freedoms and decisions to be made at a state level. Correspondingly once the Constitution was completed The Anti Federalist opposed to it. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights in addition to their claim
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.
Primarily, individuals such as Andrew Hamilton and James Madison, Federalists, believed in a stronger central government whereas others such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, Anti-Federalists, were for larger state government. Federalists were typically untrusting of citizens and the American people, and felt that the more educated individuals involved in government would govern. In contrast, individuals such as Henry and Jefferson believed that government was for the people, and should be given to the people to handle. In today’s standards, the Federalist views typically align with those of the Democratic platform while those with Anti-Federalist views align with those of the Republican
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.
The anti federalist in the other hand wanted more rights for the states they believed in a strong state and a very minimalist federal government, they focused on the bill of rights whereas the federalist focused on the
If the Anti-Federalists had not taken a stand, several important elements may have been left out of the Constitution such as the checks and balances that kept each of the divisions of government from obtaining too much control of the government. In addition, limiting terms of certain political offices kept a rotation of not only ideas, but a variety of leaders and representatives for the various states. Finally, without the intervention of the Anti-Federalists, the “Bill of Rights” may not have been added to the governing policies and the protection of individual rights may not have been put into place. The combination of Federalists and Anti-Federalists allowed the creation of a strong national government with a “personal” representation of the individuals it was created
This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.
2). Whereas The Anti-Federalists movement was led by Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Samuel Adams in which they strived to create a strong executive similar to a monarchy in which there were fewer limitations on popular participation. Then we had the Federalists, which consisted of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,and John Jay. Together they created and strived for a set of beliefs that checks and balances could protect against abuse, ultimate protection of property rights, and stressed the weakness of articles; indicating that a strong government was needed to protect the nation and solve domestic
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists On September 17, 1787, the constitution was signed and in America, this changed society because the constitution was fundamentals and examples for the future for next generations to follow. Although, to many people, the constitution was not enough and it only benefited those wrote it and created equality for the majority of people but not everyone. However, even though there were protesters, there were supports who did not see this constitution as flawed, but the only perfection. These two groups were known as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, in which they wrote continuous arguments against each other to only disprove other.
Federalists and Antifederalists When the Constitution was written in 1787 and submitted to the states for ratification, it set off months of fierce debate. There were many people who agreed with ratifying the Constitution and welcomed it as a stronger and more effective federal government that could successfully unite the 13 states together into one nation. These people were known as federalists. But others opposed ratifying the Constitution because they were afraid the proposed federal government was too powerful and wouldn’t protect the rights of the people. These people were known as antifederalists.
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.
The Anti-Federalists on the other hand only wanted to make amendments to the Articles. They were concerned with the government becoming too powerful. People’s rights as expressed in previous American documents were something they were strongly protecting. Power was something they believed best to be left to the states.
