ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists Arguments

959 Words4 Pages

Both documents from both the Federalist document number one and the Anti-Federalists document number one examine what our nation would be like under one central government. These documents are very generalized introductions for their arguments to either created a new constitution, or ratify our existing one. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the United States didn 't use a large, powerful government as we know it today. The nation put most of the power into individual states which created several issues with the overall standing of the U.S. The governing document during this time, the Articles of Confederation, had multiple weaknesses including that there was no tax authority, no chief executive, and no judicial system. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 ultimately allowed for a functional, united governing system. The Federalists argument was more valid than the Anti-Federalist 's argument because they argued for an adequate government to preserve the union, a strong and energetic government, political prosperity, and the protection of life and liberty. In order to understand why the Federalist 's argument is stronger, we must examine the Anti-Federalist 's perspective. An Anti-Federalist is someone who opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution. This group created by Thomas Jefferson also disapproved of giving the federal …show more content…

During this period, the Anti-Federalists felt as though the aristocrats had no particular opinion about our future government, which alarmed the group. Because they saw aristocrats as overpowering the opinions of those who are not as noble. The writer states that he would rather be a free citizen of the Republic of Massachusetts than succumb to a great American Empire. The Federalist goes on to say that unless there is some security of the people 's liberties, the new Constitution will not be successful. The writer had full faith in the citizens of the United States to decide what was best for the future of the

Show More
Related
598 Words | 3 Pages

According to my point of view the anti-federalists played upon these sentiments in the ratification tradition in Massachusetts. By this point, five of the states had sanctioned the Constitution without any difficulty, however the Massachusetts tradition was significantly all the more sharp and hostile. At last, after long open

Read More
827 Words | 4 Pages

These people were known as the Anti-federalist and wrote their own essays as to what they believed, they also looked more to the Articles of Confederation because it did not look at the central government as much. On the other hand, the Federalist approved of the central government and are a strong supporter of the Constitution. The Federalist papers overall created and unified our government, because without the separation of powers we would not have a strong government because every state will act as their own. At the end once the ratification of the

Read More
1511 Words | 7 Pages

Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..

Read More
827 Words | 4 Pages

Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

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

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.

Read More
585 Words | 3 Pages

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.

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
572 Words | 3 Pages

The Federalists supported the constitution, and wanted more power to the central government. The Federalists pushed for the constitution because it would give them more power, mainly because they were the government officials, in the central government. Opposed to the constitution were the Anti-Federalists, who wanted the Bill Of Rights not the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists believed the Senate would be too powerful and they (the others/ Anti-Federalists) would be oppressed. The Anti-Federalists wanted the same power as the Federalists, and those in the government.

Read More
543 Words | 3 Pages

The Federalist Papers were, and still are, very important to American History. These series of essays, mostly written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, were published to persuade Americans to ratify the new constitution. The new constitution would replace the Articles of Confederation, what the American’s had been living under at the time. The constitution highlighted an issue that the articles did not; empowering the central government like never before. Allowing the central government to act in the interest of the United States.

Read More
203 Words | 1 Pages

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.

Read More
674 Words | 3 Pages

Federalists The Federalists had a better belief on improving the government. They believed in ratification. They knew if you separated the powers of government under three branches, it would protect the rights of people. No one branch has more authority than the other.

Read More
199 Words | 1 Pages

The federalist want a New Constitution because Federalist want a fresh start and want to avoid tyranny. In my opinion the Anti-Federalist is the weaker government between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist do not want states to have their own government. Not having a government in charge of each individual state

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

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

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

More about The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists Arguments

Open Document