ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

1651 Words7 Pages

Federalist and Anti-Federalists: The Debate that Shaped American History Following the turbulent period of the Revolutionary War, a young nation was officially born on the massive continent of North America. After years of indirect British rule, the colonies were left to completely govern themselves and were largely disconnected with no strong centralized government to unite the colonies. With the colonists preferring limited government such as governors with weak executive power, their animosity with an authoritative and aristocratic government was clear (Baker 9/29/15). This preference was reflected in the first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation. However, due to its glaring weaknesses, a revision was necessary. …show more content…

This belief in a more powerful national government and its ability to unite the states together to become a collective country centered on its ability to solve internal and external affairs. Prior to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation’s glaring weakness included the limited powers of Congress such as its inability to tax or regulate commerce, no national military, and no executive or judiciary branch (Baker 9/29/15). With the Constitution granting the increase in the power of the national government, it sought to solve these deficiencies. Highlighting the need to proliferate the power of Congress, The Federalist 51 by James Madison wrote that “in republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates” (Madison 1788, 60). The Federalists believed in authorizing the legislative branch the most power due to it being the voice of the people. Another argument for the national government by the Federalists was evidenced in the Federalist 10 by James Madison. Madison, having a negative view of factions, stated that “there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by destroying its causes; the other, by controlling its effects” (Madison 1787, 52). Despite his disparaging view on factions, Madison stressed its necessity as “liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment …show more content…

In a time period straight after the Revolutionary War, a stronger national government was crucial in order to unite the country after the recognition of their independence. After a long period of comfortable representation by the British, unity was necessary. Provisions such as the creation of a national military, increased powers of Congress, and the addition of the judiciary and executive branch all had and has a significant impact on American history and today. With the weak economy after the Revolutionary War and states having its own individual currency, the federal control of money was necessary to the revive the economy and infrastructure (Baker 9/29/15). Another importance of the military is their ability to facilitate the executive duty to enforce laws. One historical example is President Dwight Eisenhower sending the 101 U.S. airborne-unit to Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 to safely escort African-American students to a racially segregated high school (Baker 10/13/15). Despite Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka in 1954’s judiciary ruling for the desegregation of schools, Governor Orval Faubus opposed integration (Baker 10/13/15). The executive, President Eisenhower, effectively used the power supported by the Federalists to enforce the law. This enforcement of laws may have been impossible under the Anti-Federalists. Also, The Federalists’ desire to increase federal power

Show More
Related
1152 Words | 5 Pages

In the early years, after winning independence from Great Britain, the American colonies set up their government in accordance with their first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. This means that the majority of the power laid in the hands of the states and Congress, “the only institution of national authority” (Brinkley 151) at that time, had very little power. This distribution of authority was the manifestation of the American’s fear of a strong, central government. However, as time passed, more and more people came to agree that the national government was too weak and needed to be strengthened.

Read More
1511 Words | 7 Pages

The federal government does not have full, complete power of the government, due to the fact the federal government has to power to tax, regulate commerce, and put laws into place if and only if laws are so called “necessary and proper.” Another thing was for each branch of government to have their own separation of powers and check and balance other branches of government. Either though, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists did not agree on ideas, the Constitution is a document of the general compromise between the two political parties. The weakness of the Articles of the Confederation was resolved through the compromise of the Federalists and Anti-federalists political

Read More
857 Words | 4 Pages

Author James Madison wrote several of the Federalist Papers to support the new United States Constitution and explain how it accounted for the most ideal system of government. To gain support from the public, Madison and the other authors explained in these papers the benefits of the government set up by the Constitution and how it would represent the ideals agreed upon by the founding minds of the country. Especially in the Federalist 10 and 51, Madison outlines how the government best protects and secures liberty. Madison explains in the Federalist 10 that extending republics protects liberty by safeguarding the Union against factions; he continues to assert in the Federalist 51 that the government can also protect liberty by implementing checks and balances.

Read More
318 Words | 2 Pages

United under the articles of confederation federalist and anti federalist strongly believed in liberty and freedom but there were more differences than similarities for example, Federalist and anti federalist had very different ideas on how the new nation of America should have run. federalist wanted a strong central government to fix the weak system of the Articles Of The Confederation and strengthen the nation as a whole, while anti federalist wanted a weak central government, so they could continue to have the power that made up their economy and regulations in each state. During the Revolutionary the founding fathers need to show the people and other nations that they were prepared to fight for America's freedom in a orderly and

Read More
343 Words | 2 Pages

James Madison’s Federalist 10 was written amid criticisms that a republican form of government had never been successful on a large scale. Madison’s argument was that a well-constructed union could control factions. He argued that in order to control factions from their causes, we would need to either give up liberty or free thought. Since we cannot infringe upon these two natural rights, we must move on to controlling the effects. A republic, Madison argues, would be able to do this because the people choose the representatives, and they choose representatives who they feel best represent their opinions.

Read More
843 Words | 4 Pages

In order for the country to operate successfully, the federal government must be able to have authority to control the well-being of the nation. The Articles of Confederation hindered the central government’s ability to achieve that authority due

Read More
876 Words | 4 Pages

causes could not be removed7. Alexander Hamilton advocated in Federalist Paper No. 51 for a strong central government with a system of checks and balances; “several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places”8. Hamilton and Madison specifically tried to prevent a revolution, like theirs toward Britain, from happening in America by proposing a strong democratic republic that could operate in concert with state governments and maintain a certain level of autonomy over the states and the nation as a whole. Federalist Papers No. 6-9 spoke to the importance of a strong union, as well as the discord a separation of states might have caused9.

Read More
537 Words | 3 Pages

Democratic-Republican and Federalists are two names of two major groups during the time the before the constitution was ratified until a little after. Democratic-Republicans believed in a loose construction of the constitution, while federalists the opposite. Federalists supported a federalism, while Democratic-Republicans favored a Democratic Republicanism. A Democratic Republicanism is a government in which the rights of the people are very important. Federalism is the gathering of a government with one main head, the exact thing the Democratic-Republicans feared.

Read More
323 Words | 2 Pages

The Articles of Confederation did not adequately control and decrease the negative impacts of groups on the country, and in this manner another government was essential. The administration laid out in the Constitution was perfect since it was a republic, an agent government that would keep self-intrigued interests from holding an excessive amount of influence over the legislature. It was equally substantial, containing agents from each state and various vested parties, making it troublesome for one faction to overwhelm and stifle the others. Delegates would be chosen by a large group of individuals, assuring that just the most commendable would hold office. At last, laws were gone by the entire country, making it troublesome for issues in one state to invade and influence others.

Read More
398 Words | 2 Pages

Why did the federalists and the republicans became to be? Why were they so different? This questions and so many more are the questions bombard a lot of people who live in the U.S. In this essay, we will be talking about each political party and the reason why each wanted to create their very own political party. First of all, the federalists ideas and in which areas they concentrated on.

Read More
813 Words | 4 Pages

Federalism is just one of the few ways the constitution guards against tyranny. “The power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments…”(James Madison, Federalist Paper #51,1788), the thought was to

Read More
194 Words | 1 Pages

The Federalists and the Anti federalists have a lot of arguments, and that is why America can be developed and become to more powerful in the world. First of all, the Federalists are the people who support the present relationship between the federal government and governments of the fifty states, which came into effect with the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787. On the other hand, the Anti federalists are those who oppose the current political structure. The tussle between these two groups can be traced back to the 18th century, when the committee which met to revise the Articles of Confederation concluded that its revision was not feasible and the entire constitution had to be rewritten. The Civil War was a fight to preserve the

Read More
1381 Words | 6 Pages

Problems with the Articles of Confederation Essay Option #1 Jeffrey Song POL 1101 ATRA Professor Wilby 10/16/17 Only by fighting a revolution could the colonists solve the problem of the tyrannical British. However, after winning the war, the colonists found ruling themselves much more difficult than what they had initially expected. Ratified in 1781, the Articles of Confederation was the first type of governmental structure that unified the colonies. This document was short-lived, only lasting about eight years, because of a multitude of problems. The Articles of Confederation’s primary flaw was the lack of governmental authority.

Read More
333 Words | 2 Pages

In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison suggests the establishment of the republic and introduces the separation of powers. Now, with these two points, Madison’s explains how having a republic would be effective because with the large number of representatives now in place it would establish qualified people to serve for the good of America. As well with the separation of powers, it would introduce a system of checks of balances within the government, because before there was only one branch, the legislative, and there was no form of checking if whether they were being just. With the powers divided it would reduce factions and any type of corruption would be limited. With these improvements it would make the government more efficient than before.

Read More
674 Words | 3 Pages

The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch were created and they all have equal powers. Federalist No. 51 states, “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others … But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” The Anti-Federalists believed the executive branch had too much power and that it became a monarch government. Richard Henry Lee's Objections to the Constitution states, “In the new Constitution, the President and Senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power.

Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

Open Document