More handpicked essays just for you.
The federalist views
Essays regarding federalists and antifederalists
Essays regarding federalists and antifederalists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Most Anti-Federalists were in the working class, debtors, poor, and people living in the backcountry or rural areas. The well-known Anti-Federalists at this time were Patrick Henry and Sam Adams. Federalists and Anti-Federalist were different in many ways and each believed that their form of government was best for them and the United States, but money played a big role in their decisions also. Document A, written by James Madison, supports Federalism. It talks about how to remove a faction and how to cure its outcomes.
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.
Following the Revolutionary War, America had just gained independance from Great Britain and needed to form a new government. The Articles of Confederation were established as an attempt to create a government that was unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. When in the process of repairing those weaknesses, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists formed. The Articles of Confederation were very weak as well as useless to America and because of this, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists could not agree on a new type of government.
Before the famous Constitution became published on September 17, 1787, there was a huge democracy over it since some people supported it (federalists), while others opposed it (anti-federalists). Basically the main arguments used by the Anti-Federalists in the discussion of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Constitution offered too much power to the federal government and that the rights of the people were not promised through a Bill of Rights. In order to get their words out, they had ratified convections for the thirteen states. They choose to go to Pennsylvania first because of its size, influence, and wealth.
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
Anti-Federalists are those who are against the ratification of the Constitution because, they fear having a strong national government that would overpower the states. They are mainly state’s rights advocates as they remain loyal to their state governments. Additionally, they are generally poorer than the Federalists. Anti-Federalists believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good enough plan that did not need any modification. They believed the Constitution lacked the protection of basic political rights, and did not give any significant power to the states.
Today’s America has evolved differently from the intention of a certain group of the founder’s. This essay takes the stance that America in 2017 is moving closer to the viewpoint of the Federalists, compared to the Republicans. First, one must analyze the two parties, then draw the conclusion with supportive facts. Lastly, the comparisons will be summarized and the differences will be minimized.
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.
Federalist and Anti-Federalist had different views on the new constitution. The Federalist supported strong central government and did not want the Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalist wanted power in the states and wanted limited federal power. The framers chose to create a strong federal government because they wanted a government that could bring together a belief within the states without reducing other states ability to control itself. They wanted small states because it would make is easier to reach an agreement.
Regarding the ideal structure of government, they did not agree on a single point. They did, however, agree to oppose the Constitution as it was being put up for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists opposed the national power grab. They supported the restricted use of national power that the Articles of Confederation allowed for small, localized administrations. They thought republican governments could only exist at the state level and could not function at the federal level.
I stand with Anti-Federalism I stand with Anti-Federalism due to the fact they were not completely opposed to federalism, but wanted to improve it. They leaned towards the states having the power. There is nothing wrong with the constitution but the essence in the bill of rights plays a role in our personal day to day rights and our country would not be at its full potential, or a super power without it. I believe the anti-federalist are open minded, and a nation with an open mind will be successful.
The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
