ipl-logo

To What Extent And How Did The Anti-Federalists Agree On A New Constitution

1024 Words5 Pages

Jake, Kiara, Miah, and Danny Unit 2 Question 1 How did the Anti-Federalists and Federalists agree on a new Constitution? Delegates met at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation. The idea of having a strong national government divided people either in support or against the new Constitution. Anti-Federalists voiced their objections to the proposed Constitution as they feared a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists had objections to the proposed Constitution that were shaped by their political philosophies. Their three biggest concerns included a Republican Government, the president, and the lack of Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalists agreed that a republican government was the only form of government …show more content…

They believed this form of government was too distant from the people. To have a republican government, virtuous citizens would be required. They insisted that in a republic the people are sovereign and for those people to make good decisions they would need to be virtuous. And according to Anti-Federalists, it was less likely to have people like this in a large nation than a small state. It was then argued that a president; someone equipped with power to nominate judicial officers, pardon for the offense of treason, and armed forces at his disposal, would resemble a “elective King”. This point was made by Luther Martin and it was reflecting the fears that were a result of the experience Americans had with the British Monarchy. Many were shocked that there was no Bill of Rights in the ratification of the Constitution. …show more content…

Federalists argued that “energy in the executive is the first prerequisite of good government” as it needed power to enforce laws, and provide protection against attacks. Having one executive serve for four years avoided conflict between two or more leaders of equal power, allowing the president to “act quickly when necessary for the common defense to preserve the public peace and in international relations.” The four year term helps the president “resist momentary impulses and act on the basis of the long-term calculations of the public good.” Federalists also believed the executive should be elected by an electoral college. This would solve the dispute between those who wanted to use the popular vote and those who wanted to use state legislatures to choose. The Bill of Rights was another topic the Federalists discussed. In a political system where government authority is derived from the people, adding the Bill of Rights “might afford the pretext for the government to claim power if it doesn’t have on the ground.” It would provide protection against powers that have not been granted. In addition, Federalists argued the liberties listed in the Bill of Rights were included in the guarantee of habeas corpus, and prohibition of ex post facto laws. To adopt these provisions, states ratified the

Show More
Related
564 Words | 3 Pages

The anti federalists were mainly apprehensive about the Constitution, because they favored strong state governments and felt that the Constitution

Read More
676 Words | 3 Pages

It took a few compromises for the two parties to agree on a new constitution. Firstly, there was many problems with the Articles of Confederation. One major problem was the states had too much power (Document 2). The central was too weak to control the states, and in some ways this is exactly what the colonists wanted.

Read More
133 Words | 1 Pages

Federalist’s ideas about functions of the central government encompassed a national appeal that influenced adoption of the constitution. They convinced the delegates that a strong national government was capable of ensuring equitable resource sharing. By quoting the gaps in the Articles of Confederation, the Federalists expressed the concern that passing the constitution would address the highlighted inefficacies to make American a sustainable nation. Also, Federalists were open to new ideas including the consideration of the bill of rights. Contrariwise, the Antifederalists did not prosper in the mission to convince the delegates to oppose the constitution that provided supreme powers to the national government (Hamilton, Madison and Jay 67).

Read More
827 Words | 4 Pages

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who

Read More
622 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1149 Words | 5 Pages

After the American Revolution, the formation of a new government was precedent. Federalists were afraid of disorder, anarchy, and chaos; the unchecked power of the masses, and sought for the constitution to create a government distant from popular passions. On the other hand, antifederalists were more concerned about the dangers of concentrated power. Equally, the antifederalists opposed the constitution because of the obstacles between the people and the exercised power, which is why federalists supported it. Hamilton was the Leader of the federalist party while Jefferson was the leader of the Republican party.

Read More
929 Words | 4 Pages

The main debate was about individual rights. Originally, the Constitution lacked a bill of rights. Anti-federalists insisted that a bill of rights be added to the Constitution to expressly grant freedoms to the country. On the other hand, federalist James Madison believed the Constitution was enough, and adding a bill of rights was unnecessary. As southern states did with slavery, antifederalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights.

Read More
649 Words | 3 Pages

The Anti- Federalists also believed that the United States should just stay with the Articles of Confederation and wanted to prevent creating a federal government that could develop into a very dominant and overpower individual’s rights. They were also afraid that the Constitution would create too much power in the

Read More
1089 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
796 Words | 4 Pages

Antifederalists were against the ratification of the Constitution because they believed in classical republicanism. Monroe and Kersh (2016) define classical republicanism as, “ a democratic idea … that calls on citizens to participate in public affairs, seek the public interest, shun private gain, and defer to natural leaders,” (p. 69). The Antifederalists wanted citizens to take part in government so that public interests would be well represented so that the minority of the population would not have more power than the majority. The Antifederalists had four main reasons why they were against the ratification of the Constitution. Firstly, according to Monroe and Kersh (2016) “it stripped political control from citizens and placed it in a

Read More
490 Words | 2 Pages

They believed the Bill Of Rights was needed in the Constitution to provide individual rights. The federalist was the ones who supported the Constitution as it was and they wanted to get it ratified right away. They supported a strong centralized government. “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”

Read More
665 Words | 3 Pages

“Anti-federalist concern that anything not included in the Constitution would not be protected” (Amendment 9). The quote from Amendment 9 proves the Anti-federalists feared a strong central government because, if something was not written in the Constitution then it would

Read More
748 Words | 3 Pages

Central government did not have the power the federalists wish it would have had under the Articles. Due to the constitution, the central government was too strong in the eyes of the anti-federalists. The Constitution didn’t provide any power for the states and individual freedom. Anti-federalists were scared that if a president was reelected, he would act more like a king. Many people's ideas contributed on the Debate Over the

Read More
713 Words | 3 Pages

In order for America to succeed as a nation both the anti-Federalists and Federalists had to agree about the future of the nation and the Constitution. The Federalists believed that the republican government proposed by the Constitution was likely to be successful and efficacious while the anti-Federalists were not convinced and believed that the power should remain at the hands of the state and local governments. One of the reasons that the Federalists believed that the republican government was likely to be successful and efficacious, as presented in the Constitution, was because the larger government meant more power to control the transatlantic force. The Federalists believed that only a union would be strong enough to secure favorable

Read More
487 Words | 2 Pages

During the process of ratifying the constitution, the federalists and anti-federalists had major disagreements on what views and ideas should be presented. Because of all of the disagreements, the two groups were eventually divided and each held their own views on what the constitution should carry. The federalists were a group of led by Alexander Hamilton and were the first political party of the United States. Most of the federalist lived in urban areas.

Read More

More about To What Extent And How Did The Anti-Federalists Agree On A New Constitution

Open Document