More handpicked essays just for you.
Anti federalists in the colonies
Federalist and anti federalist differences
Debate between federalist and anti-federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The federalist was all for changing the Articles of Confederation and creating a strong government while the Anti-federalist were against changing the system they wanted to fix the main problem. The anti-federalist believed that the states should continue to have power over the government. Both the federalist and the anti-federalist
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
The anti-federalists feared a strong government because it posed a threat to the people rights and that the president could be a king. I find that the federalist camp more appealing because they realized the weakness of the Confederation and tried to improve it such as the Judicial court system. There was no system of courts in the national government, the courts were dependent on the other states. This also made it that the states can ignore the national law without any consequences because the Congress has no way to enforce its own law. But the constitution helps the Congress to establish a national court system.
The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification. Thomas Jefferson also asserts that he doesn’t like the fact that there is no rules and regulations in regard to office terms, and how the officers could get re-elected and serve for like, thus, will result with corruption
Although, the anti-federalist wanted the legislative branch to have more power over among the three branches. Increasing the legislative branch power will increase the state power in the government. Favoring the anti-federalist idea of a strong state ruling government. In addition, the constitution favor a position in the executive branch, the president. The anti-federalist were against the president because it is similar to a king in a monarch.
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.
If a government became too strong, liberty would be destroyed. Anti-Federalists also did not agree on the Federalists framework for the Congress. They thought there would be too few representatives in Congress to represent the great diverse views of all
While the federalist and anti-federalist had opposing views in a functioning government system, some crucial points were agreed upon. They both knew in order for the United States to succeed as a new country, they needed better stability and a sense of unity between the colonies. The Articles of Confederation, on both sides, were thought of as a weak system of governmental control. A central government appealed to both sides, but as to how much power it would possess was still at a still point. Federalist wanted a strong central government, whereas anti-federalists were afraid of it seeming too much like the British monarchy.
Their belief was that the government would have too much power. The Anti-Federalists were satisfied with the way the Constitution was. The Anti-federalists thought that states should have more rights, that there should be a Bill of rights. They
Disagreements about the appropriate framework for government were predominantly featured between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The Federalists proposed that America needed a constitution that promoted a stronger central government that also gave powers to the subnational governments of the states. According to them, this would create a more unified nation that would facilitate law and order. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists opposed the idea of having a stronger central government due to the perpetual fear that a central government could potentially expand its power and eventually take all the powers from the states. They wanted to avoid this kind of government as much as possible, as it reminded them of their experiences under the unitary British
The Federalists supported the Constitution and argued for a strong central government, while the Anti-federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalists supported a powerful executive branch for effective governance
During the time where you had to choose between federalist vs. anti-federalist, I would support anti-federalism. Anti-federalist vowed to defend lower class against the government, protect state rights, and vowed to make sure the constitution was not being taken advantage of. They believe The Bill of Rights should be used with the constitution. What are federalist you ask? Well, federalist are people that believe in a strong central government and that it is required to be a powerful government,
I am in Favor of the Anti federalists because we need to know that the citizens are well protected, especially those who are not as wealthy as others since, in a national government, only wealthy citizens would be able to act. In addition to that, if we go through with a federal government, they will not be able to insure safety, ensure an equitable amount of freedom, or a bill of rights, which is necessary for a constitution. A bill of rights is needed for the constitution in order to protect the citizens against the power of national government. If there was to be a federal constitution, the wealthy would have a say in the argument but the other side would not if they were not wealthy. A Bill of rights is needed in order to protect ordinary
