ipl-logo

What Is The Argument For The Anti-Federalists?

603 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Impact of american revolution

The American Revolution, a war fought against a distant and all too powerful government, instilled a fear of centralized governmental power in the United States. The idea of the U.S. constitution sparked a political divide; it encouraged heated debates from those who are known as Federalists, and those who are known as Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, individuals who supported the ratification of the constitution, argued that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and that a strong national government with checks and balances was needed. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists argued that the president would be like a king and that there needs to be a Bill of Rights to protect the people. If I had been alive in the time of this intense debate, I would have voted for the federalist side of the argument. I believe that a government stronger than the Articles of Confederation was needed, but I would also have supported the Bill of Rights. …show more content…

Reflecting upon “the complaints of farmers … the complaints of every class public creditors” and the “melancholy faces of … working people” the Federalists knew that they needed change, and that change should come in the form of a strong national government (Frazier 61). The Federalists, in order to combat the Anti-Federalists’ fears about the national government having too much power that could result in tyranny, proposed the idea of checks and balances. Thomas Jefferson, a man with the grand vision of liberty on his mind, supported the “organization of the government into Legislative, Judiciary and Executive” branches, because with the ability of each branch to restrict the other, the possibility of tyranny and a corrupt national government was drastically reduced (Jefferson

Show More
Related
189 Words | 1 Pages

On the other hand, Cornell explains that this “will of the people” was often contorted on both sides as political debate. Thus, the “dissenting tradition” was not more than who was more qualified to run the government through countless debates and public appeal. As explained by Cornell,”Each side expended enormous energy crafting appeals to persuade citizens that it was better qualified to represent the will of the people” (Cornell 21). Thus, the Anti-Federalists were using the people to debate themselves in the public sphere to gain the will of the common man and avoid the evil corrupt centralized authority.

Read More
1144 Words | 5 Pages

The ratification debate of 1788 pitted Federalists against Antifederalists over adoption of the proposed Constitution. Through the Eyes of John Patrick Coby "Raising the Eleventh Pillar: This essay will examine the key differences between the Federalist and Antifederalist positions in regard to the 1788 ratification debate and their positions on key issues debated. Federalists backed the proposed Constitution from Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. They envisioned a powerful central government which could correct the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. Federalist arguments argued for a united nation capable of regulating commerce, maintaining national defense, and ensuring economic prosperity.

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

If "regular" people had controlled the government would fall so to speak. While the Anti-Federalist party who consisted of, Patrick Lee, George Mason, Mercy Otis Warren, and Richard Henrey Lee were against amending the constitution because, they felt as though because of the lack of Bill of Rights, the new federal government would become far too powerful which would start jeopardizing personal freedom. The anti-federalists we're not opposed of the idea of having something new. They opposed the idea of who would make all the decisions. The idea it was to have a government buy one that was for the people.

Read More
318 Words | 2 Pages

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

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

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Federalists were mostly merchants, bankers manufacturers, and wealthy farm owners. They basically owned land or some type of property and were well-educated. Most of these people lived in urban areas. Anti-Federalists were mostly artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, and poor farmers. They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas.

Read More
1155 Words | 5 Pages

During the ratification of the debate of Constitution of the United States, there were two groups that played a major role during the time. Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution. They were mostly conservative wealthy landowners or former loyalists. Some of the well-known Federalist during this time were George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Anti-Federalists on the other hand opposed the ratification of the constitution, and they were in favor of the Articles of Confederation since it was less government and the states still maintained their sovereignty.

Read More
149 Words | 1 Pages

During the time period of the late eighteenth century the United States were seeking a new governing platform that would support the ideals present in the American Revolution. Principles such as freedom, independence and natural rights were among the driving forces in shaping the constitution. Throughout the creation of the document many disputes occurred, the Federalists wanted a strong central government with unchallenged authority while the Anti Federalists fought for personal freedoms and decisions to be made at a state level. Correspondingly once the Constitution was completed The Anti Federalist opposed to it. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights in addition to their claim

Read More
426 Words | 2 Pages

The debate between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists significantly impacted the ratification of the Constitution. In the 1780’s, there were two opposing groups: the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were concerned about the potential for a strong central government and the lack of individual rights. On the other hand, Federalists believed in a strong federal government to maintain order and protect the nation. Both these arguments and discussions led to the addition of the Bill of Rights, which addressed the Anti-Federalists' concerns.

Read More
1417 Words | 6 Pages

Following the American Revolution, America was divided into two political groups: the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both parties believed the United states future was in the best interest of the new nation. While the anti-federalists believed in power to the individual states, the federalists believed in a strong central government to body the nation. Prior to 1789, the Articles of Confederation is what held the nation together, despite the immense problems that arose from it. The document was formed in order to equally divide powers in America.

Read More
585 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
265 Words | 2 Pages

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.

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
175 Words | 1 Pages

While the federalist and anti-federalist had opposing views in a functioning government system, some crucial points were agreed upon. They both knew in order for the United States to succeed as a new country, they needed better stability and a sense of unity between the colonies. The Articles of Confederation, on both sides, were thought of as a weak system of governmental control. A central government appealed to both sides, but as to how much power it would possess was still at a still point. Federalist wanted a strong central government, whereas anti-federalists were afraid of it seeming too much like the British monarchy.

Read More
214 Words | 1 Pages

“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.

Read More

More about What Is The Argument For The Anti-Federalists?

Related Topics

Open Document