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 differences between the federalists and the anti-federalists is the federalists like a central government while the anti-federalists like a small weak government. The constitutional convention was held and the federalists wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation while the anti-federalists
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Federalists were mostly merchants, bankers manufacturers, and wealthy farm owners. They basically owned land or some type of property and were well-educated. Most of these people lived in urban areas. Anti-Federalists were mostly artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, and poor farmers. They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas.
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-Federalists wanted the people to elect their representatives, because they believed that it would allow a sense of security for the people since the congress already had so much power over them. The people repeatedly told the state legislature that they would never submit to an authority that is not elected by themselves. They had the idea that the state legislature would elect subservient to their own desires, not the people's. If the elected representatives are representing the people, then the people should choose who they want to be represented by. The Federalists, on the other hand, wanted the state legislature to elect representatives because they believed that “politicians should elect politicians.”
I would choose to be an Anti-Federalist because they did not loathe federalism, they just had felt the need to make some improvements. They had strived to put more power into the hands of the states. As the Anti-Federalists believes, I strongly agree with the constitution but I truly believe the bill of rights which was added later was very crucial to the U.S Constitution. The bill of rights has a big part in the citizen’s personal rights that people have all the time. I honestly can’t fathom what our country would be like if we did not have these rights being put into place.
The anti-federalist were the opposing party of the federalist disagreeing with the strong government. The anti-federalists had wanted a weaker government and had wanted individual rights for people by adding the bill of rights to the constitution. The anti-federalists were the type of political group who wanted rights for the people and for the United States, so everyone could have their individual rights as people. The anti-federalists believed that the federalists and the constitution was granting too much power to the federal courts at any expense. The Anti-federalists were arguing that the federal courts would be to far away to have justice for each average citizen.
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
he Anti-Federalists were centered around two fundamental things; making an oppressive government and absence of individual power on the off chance that the focal government turned out to be all the more intense (Kaminski et al 3). They held the conviction that the Constitution gave the focal government a great deal of forces through the lawmaking body, legal and official. They were of the contention that, much the same as King George III, the official would be onerous to the general population as opposed to ensuring their individual rights. In supporting their claim, the counter Federalists contended that Americans had been included in a grisly and exceedingly expensive progressive clash to wind up free from British run the show. Setting themselves in a place like that of an unregulated government would not be valuable to the eventual fate of the country.
The Anti-Federalists were too trepid in their allocation of power. Under an Anti-Federalists executive, there would be largely no power held by the executive. However, evidenced by The Articles of Confederation there is a necessity for a strong executive who can execute the laws forcefully. The Anti-Federalists believed in weakening the executive as much as possible. However, many of their methods are not viable options.
The Federalist believed that establishing a national government was not only possible, but mandatory in order to create a healthy nation. Until this point, the common belief was that a government may solely operate effectively, if it had little power. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a powerful national government would better sustain the rights of the people. The Federalist also argued that, that the new government would not have too much power because of checks and balances that would help prevent the national government from total control, which was stressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself”. While the opposite party, the Anti-Federalist were small farmers and middle class people who were led by Patrick Henry, and other important middle class figures.
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.
Federalists were for a strong central government and Anti-federalists were for a strong state government. The major arguments that were faced by the Federalists
When it comes to the Constitution which our nation will follow for the years to come it is extremely important to make sure this government is set up the way we want it to be. The federalists believe in a central government which is then broken down into separate branches which will eventually be selected by the people. The anti-federalists wanted to have a weak government which we already tried through the articles of confederation and that was a absolute fail. They want it to be ran by the states and we know that will not work. the only good thing they could add to the conversation is the Bill of Rights.
