Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalism short answer questions
Two roles of federalism
What exactly is federalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalism short answer questions
Two roles of federalism
What exactly is federalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Jeffersonian Republican and Federalist parties were very different in their way of government, but they did have one major thing in common and that was that they both wanted what they believed to be best for the nation, and believed it would be achieved through democracy. That is about where the similarities end. The Federalist party was majority wealthy people and aristocrats, strongest in the Northeast. While the Republicans were middle class who lived in the south and west. The Republicans also favored agriculture and rural life.
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
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.
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.
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.
Since after the American Revolution and the creation of the US federal government, congress instructed the delegates to ratify the Articles of Confederation (Greenberg, p. 49). According to our class discussion, Federalists are those who supported the Constitution, as anti- Federalists are the opponents of the Constitution. So why there were political battles between two parties in the late 18th century?
The federalists support the Constitution as presented by the convention delegates where as anti-federalists opposed the constitution and claimed that it gave the national government too much power, which erode states authority and endangered individual
Federalist wanted wealthy and educated people and the Democrats wanted ordinary people. Federalist wanted strong national government and the Democrats wanted state banks. Federalist were Pro-British and the Democrats were Pro-French. Federalist loose interpretation constitution and the Democrats were strict interpretation constitution. Federalist were very selfish they only cared about the rich and the Democrats were good people they cared about the rich and poor people.
“Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” The title of the article is “The Antifederalists were right” it was written on Sept. 27, 2006 by Gary Galles. The article was about the reasons why antifederalists were right. The Federalists wanted a strong central government.
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.
When it came to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists the differences are many and at times very complex, due to the beliefs that the Federalists are nationalist at heart. The Federalists had an incredibly big role in shaping the new Constitution, which the Federalists used to create a stronger Constitution at great cost to the Anti-Federalists. If you ask the Anti-Federalists They believe that should be a ratification of the US Constitution in every state. But due to the Anti-Federalists being poor at organizing they really didn’t gain any ground. Although they didn’t achieve their goals of ratification of the US Constitution, but they did force the first congress under a new Constitution along with the bill of rights.
For the Federalists this meant that they would abide by the law and abide by what was written on the Constitution for they believed everything that was written on it. In the other case with the Anti-Federalists this meant that they did not believe anything written on the Constitution and did not abide by any of the laws that were written there, (for they did not believe the constitution), that's why they created the bill of rights. The second difference between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is the fact that Federalists wanted power in the states but the Anti-Federalists wanted power in the central government. This meant because the Federalists wanted power in the states that everyone would have equal say and it would not be equal. For the Anti-Federalists, believing that the power should go to the central government meant that the people would not have a say in voting and it would all just be biased and that is not fair nor right and it is not
The anti-federalists saw that the Bill of rights as very necessary, and federalists thought that the constitution was perfect the way it
Are you a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? The proportional representation of the people and the government in the pursuit of equality and happiness is thoroughly explained through the Anti-Federalist party. Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of 'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress." By stating this he intended to provide the explanation and root of the problem; the egos of both parties, especially federalists were a constant wall blocking the parties from a resolution The Anti-Federalists were composed of many differential elements.
There is a quote from Aristotle that reads that if “Democracy arose from man's thinking that if they are equal in any respect then they are equal absolutely”. When dealing with making contrasts between Federalist and Anti-Federalist writers this quote often comes to mind. Primarily due to the fact that what constitutes as a good and proper representation for the society of the American people is a key element honed in on by both Federalist and Anti-Federalists. How do we justly elect representatives for the American people? What kind of systems do we need to have put in place to allow for them to be elected?