For many people, we don’t really talk about this topic often, or at all depending on the person, so none of us really know the difference(s) between the two. Federalists believe that all power is controlled by the national government. They prefer that a single person lead the executive branch and they believed that the Constitution didn’t need the Bill of Rights. However, they are in the wrong. In my opinion, the anti-federalists aren’t as strong-minded as the federalists would be in the government, they would have better control in the direction they wanted their government to go: either have a tyrant rule and control the entire United States, or let the people have a say in what they want in a government and have the government actually take …show more content…
Anti-federalists questioned whether the new Constitution would lead to the security of the rights of the Americans or the destruction of them. A person under the name Brutus asked the question that all Americans wondered: “Could a widely dispersed and diverse people be united under one government without sacrificing the blessings of liberty and self-government?” This lead to the creation of the first anti-federalist paper, which is based off of Brutus’ question. I agree with him because since the United States was becoming more diverse at the time, it was important to base the government off of the people, not the powers controlling …show more content…
I do not agree with the federalists. However, it’s not all about me. Some people do support the federalist’s opinions and ways of setting up government. One of the authors, John Jay, believed that some form of government is necessary in a society and that all forms of government must be granted sufficient power to regulate conflict and administer new laws. “A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it (Jay). I agree with this statement, but I don’t agree with the arguments supporting this statement, especially since it’s based on the federalist’s point of view. He goes to elaborate on why the United States is already united. The navigable rivers connect the states through trade. He also goes to say that we worshiped the same God, come from the same land, speak the same language, have similar manners and customs, and believe in the same principles of government. I definitely don’t agree with this because in the future, it wasn’t like that anymore. Since immigration started, the country has been getting more diverse in culture, language, religion, and governmental views. This sums up the concept of the second paper of the federalist