ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast The Views Of The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

742 Words3 Pages

The views of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists created clashes and delayed the ratification process. The supporters of the Constitution were called Federalists and they argued a strong government is important to protect people’s rights. Federalists thought a strong government would benefit the nation as a whole. Since most of the federalists were considerably wealthy, the lent money to the government during the revolution. So, they thought the new constitution would help them to get their money back. They had the advantage of spreading their ideas through The Federalist, which complied of essays written by the Federalists encouraging states to support ratification. Conversely, the Anti-federalists were concerned a powerful government …show more content…

There was a division between the small and the large states on representation in Congress. The New Jersey Plan suggested a Congress with equal representation of all states, despite the population. On the other hand, The Virginia Plan argued that states should have representation according to the population. The solution to this dispute was The Great Compromise, which established two houses or a bicameral Congress. This consisted of House of Representatives which had its representation based on the population. The second house, Senate gave equal representation to states. Slavery was the second issue that led to further debate. The southern states wanted to include slaves in the state’s population since slaves made up a significant portion of the population. In contrast, the northern states argued slaves should not be counted since they could not vote. To solve this disagreement, the convention came up with The Three-Fifth's Compromise, in which three out of every five slaves would be counted as three persons for representing a …show more content…

They often snatched away lands and offered promises they could not fulfill. So in this new nation now, they want to make sure everyone has justice as it is an inalienable right given by the Creator. We are to preserve that in the nation regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. Besides from the moral standpoint, the Founders wanted a nation that was free of tyranny. They did not want to be ruled by monarchs, they wanted a nation where leaders represent the interest of people and not oppress them. This was evident when they initially came up with the idea of a weak government, where it did not even have funds for wars. However, this was a failed attempt since such a government could not protect the people’s rights or even pay for wars. So, a new Constitution would have different branches of government to check on each branch from power abuse or corruption. Additionally, the Bill of Rights is a document that sets boundaries on what the government is not allowed to do. Although the Bill of Rights was initiated by the Anti-federalists, it was taken as an important consideration because individual liberty would not be a reality if not for the

Show More
Related
1050 Words | 5 Pages

Each state would have the same number of representatives in the senate. The compromise regarding representation to appease the plantation elites was known as the 3/5ths compromise. Southern states wanted (did they?) slaves to be included in the population that would be represented in congress for each state. The reason Southern states wanted slaves to be represented (even though they couldn’t vote) was because more representation meant more power for their states.

Read More
656 Words | 3 Pages

Therefore, the anti-federalist proposed the Bill of Rights to be added along with the Constitution. The Anti-federalist felt secure with the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because it protects citizens liberty and freedom. In the end, the founding fathers gathered and agreed to add the Bill of Rights when ratifying the Constitution. Furthermore, Anti-federalists were mainly farmers and they feared that under the Constitution economic policies their business will be endanger.

Read More
1552 Words | 7 Pages

When talk of the Constitution arises it is understandable that colonists were weary of a government that would have that much power after they worked so hard to break away from Great Britain. The Federalists firmly believed that the Constitution would strengthen the Federal union and not give too much power to the central

Read More
622 Words | 3 Pages

Since they were all for the new constitution, they wanted to go ahead and make it. But the Anti-federalists didn’t want this. They were hesitant on this new government. So, that is why the Federalist papers were created. These were a series of 85 essays that tried to convince Anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution.

Read More
705 Words | 3 Pages

It took the convincing of the Anti-Federalists to explain how the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and did not state the rights and freedoms of the people, therefore lacking a Bill of Rights. The Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights, and later the Constitution was ratified with nine out of thirteen votes on June 21 of 1788. Soon after the Constitution was ratified, the separation of powers was understood in the United States government. The separation of powers separated each branch of government.

Read More
1419 Words | 6 Pages

Therefore, slaves are to be counted as three fifths vote for representation, because slaves made up a large portion of the population in the southern states. Therefore, the south wanted the slaves to count as part of the population so that they would have more power in the house of representatives. The north did not want the slaves to count as part of the population because they did not want the north to have

Read More
323 Words | 2 Pages

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 differences between the delegates and the interests they represented made compromise absolutely necessary. The Great Compromise was made because small states felt there wasn’t enough representation for them in Congress. The Three-Fifths Compromise was established to solve the problem of slavery representation in Southern states. Delegates at the Constitutional Convention had to face the problem of giving fair representation to both small and large states.

Read More
99 Words | 1 Pages

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

Read More
923 Words | 4 Pages

They were particularly worried that a situation would arise where the US government would become monarchical, like Britain was. This would not happen under the Constitution because of the principles of separation of power and checks and balances. The Constitution would establish three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each of these branches would have different powers given to them so that no one branch would acquire too much influence. In addition, under the principle of checks and balances, each branch would be given the power to “check” each of the other branches.

Read More
1593 Words | 7 Pages

One of the compromises made in the Constitutional Convention is the three-fifths compromise. In this compromise, the southerners wanted to add slaves to the population of the state they lived in. If slaves were included in their state’s population, that state would be able to add more representatives in the House of Representatives. Northerners did not agree with that statement because slaves did not have the right to vote. After the delegates compromised, they agreed that only three-fifths of the slave’s population would be counted into the state’s population.

Read More
651 Words | 3 Pages

The papers that they would write detailed how the Constitution would provide “a remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government” and to “secure the public good and private rights” (Fed #10) arguing over concepts that they felt were key to providing this security. One of their main objections against the Articles of Confederation was that the “Separation of Powers” maintained in the Articles was not an effective way to protect the public against potential abuses. The Federalist argues that each department should have a will of its own and have as little as possible to do with the appointment of members of the other branches; that each department should have enough power to carry out its mission an them limit its power so that it cannot become to tyrannical. The Federalist, argues that payments attached to the offices of each branch should be as independent as possible and that a system of checks and balances were necessary to thwart encroachments by other

Read More
656 Words | 3 Pages

The Constitution was drafted as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation—the first constitution of the US which loosely held the states together. When the Constitution was being drafted, there was much debate on how much power the Central Government should have. The Anti-Federalists believed in States’ Rights, while the Federalists wanted to give more power to the Central Government. The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratifying of the Constitution. A compromise was made—the new Constitution of the United States would include a Bill of Rights.

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

The author of anti-federalist 17# was Robert Yates (not the serial killer), at the time he was a politician and judge also the oldest of his family. he lived in the state of New York and tried to run for governor. The document yates wrote was just about states that the anti-federalists did not desire a constitution as a result of they felt that it 'd offer the central government an excessive amount of power which it 'd remove all power from the states. "to raise and support armies at pleasure, in addition in peace as in war, and their management over the militia, tend not solely to a consolidation of the govt. , however the destruction of liberty..." a stronger central government would higher shield everybody and is additional for the good

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.

Read More
769 Words | 4 Pages

British poet James Russell Lowell describes compromise best in his quote “Compromise makes a good umbrella but a poor roof.” This quote rings especially true in the case of the Constitutional Convention and the compromises made there. The compromises reached on the major disputes between large and small, Northern and Southern an Free and Slave States at the Constitutional Convention created riffs between the states and the people. The Convention’s compromises provided a short-term fix to a long-term and complex problem, which in the end led to dissatisfaction and ultimately the American Civil War.

Read More

More about Compare And Contrast The Views Of The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

Open Document