The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were written between 1787 and 1789 after the Constitution had been approved. This was the two-year period after the Constitution was written where the articles of confederation were still used in guiding our Government. At the end of this two year period, the articles of the confederation would be ratified by nine of the thirteen states and a new style of Government would be in effect. (History.com) Simply put, the Federalist were those individuals who supported the Constitution. They were called Federalists because the Constitution called for a federal style government; a distribution of power between the states and the federal government.
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.
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.
The Anti federalists wanted a Monarchy, but this would cause trouble. Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the same Monarchy government, this would cause trouble because it is proven that monarchy causes violence between government and people. In monarchy the people would have no say in their country on the higher class would have a say. Federalists were also against having an army. Brutus
The federalists support the Constitution as presented by the convention delegates where as anti-federalists opposed the constitution and claimed that it gave the national government too much power, which erode states authority and endangered individual
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).
The most powerful objection raised by the Antifederalists, however, revolved around on the lack of protection for individual liberties in the Constitution. Most of the state constitutions of the era had built on the Virginia model that included an accurate protection of individual rights that could not be intruded upon by the state. This was seen as a central deserved fate of people's rights and was considered a major revolutionary improvement over the unwritten protections of the British constitution. The bill of rights was supported as an essential by anti-fed because in the original Constitution was seen as a real threat to individual citizens’ liberties. They believed that they didnt need to get rid of the articles of confederation but all they needed was to ammend it.
Federalists glorified power, specifically government-centered power, they seemed to obsess over the idea of control, because not only did they admire the Government’s authority, but they also supported the opposition of the Bill of Rights, which was meant to give people ineluctable liberties, like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to a trial. Basic rights you would to give to anyone you respected, or simply acknowledged. Anti-Federalists, however, believed in less power from the Government, and more citizen based power, believing that giving people their own “individual liberties” would lead to said person making good decisions with the betterment of the nation in
The Anti-Federalists were loyal to their state governments. Some Anti-Federalists focused on the adding on the Bill of Rights and others just despised the Constitution completely. “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety". Anti-Federalists were supported the New Jersey Plan as the Federalists supported the states just as Anti-Federalists favored. "
The Anti-Federalist argued against the idea of a powerful national government, which would limit the powers of the state. One other key argument made by the Anti-Federalist emphasized the need for a bill of rights. Anti-Federalist feared that with the lack of a bill of rights, the Constitution would not
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
Another reason for this belief was people didn't have guaranteed rights. In conclusion this belief among others led to the Anti Federalists fighting against the constitution. The Federalists and Anti Federalists thoughts on the bill of rights like everything else was different. The Federalists believed that the bill of rights was useless. Anti-Federalists thought it was essential to making sure that peoples rights were kept safe.
The ideals and arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the late eighteenth century have many similarities to the Democrats and Republicans of today. Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the first two American political parties, debated over how the country would be shaped. First when developing the Articles of Confederation, then when developing the Constitution, the two parties argued how powerful the central government should be in comparison to the states. Federalists believed in a strong federal government. They believed that to have a country that functions well, there must be one authority that can arbitrate disagreements and make decisions to move the country forward.
that it would render the states powerless. They also believed that the strength granted in the article of confederation will yield a better federal system and also that strong central government would tax their citizens heavily. Furthermore, the anti-federalist did not support the constitution because they believed that the U.S. Supreme Court would invalidate state laws and that there would be too much power for the president. They also feared the national government would run over the liberties of the people. Also, the proposed that the power of taxing by the congress be limited and that the military should consist of state militias rather than the national force.
