When the United States first gained their independence from Britain they needed to create a strong government for their colonies. The United States created their first government called the Articles of Confederation. The Articles came with many problems like no power to tax, no power to enforce the law, or regulate commerce. 10 years after having a weak government, they believed that a new type of government need to be created in order to become a strong government. They came up with the Constitution. The Constitution had to be ratified by 9 states in order to become America’s official government. In the states were supporters of the Constitution and opposers. Federalists were people that wanted the Constitution to be ratified and those …show more content…
Federalists knew that another self-governing government would only lead to a weak system just like the Articles lead them to failure. Thomas R. Frazier said, “View these things, fellow citizens, and then say that we do not require a new, a protecting, and efficient federal government if you can.” (Doc #1) Frazier is stating that America is in great need of a federal government, that they need educated and knowledgeable people to lead their country. He also means that in order to maintain their freedom and independence they would need a government to protect their rights they fought for. Creating three branches to avoid congress from becoming too powerful and keep everything under control was a much better way than having just one branch like in the Articles of Confederation. Another federalist named Jonathan Elliot said , “ … it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth.” (Doc #6) Elliot is stating that with few alterations, limiting the Constitutions power and allowing the states to make some decisions would change the Anti-Federalists mind and therefore they would create the Bill of rights to limit the …show more content…
Anti-federalists felt as if the Constitution was a threat for the United States and it would only be the beginning of becoming a corrupt country. Amos Singletree said in his speech, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men, that talk so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves… and get all the power and all the money…” (Doc #5) Singletree was giving his reason on why he opposed the Constitution, mentioning that most of the congress men that want to ratify the constitution that just want to take advantage of them. He meant that once the Constitution was ratified they would be robbed from their rights, have all their money taken away, and have total control of America in their hands. The anti-federalists also argued that once the Constitution went into effect, everyone's rights would not be protected. Mercy Otis Warren also opposed the Constitution saying that, “...There is no provision for a rotation nor anything else to prevent a political office from remaining in the same hands for life.” (Doc #2) Warren worried that one person ruling up to death would give him too much power and leading him to believe he is superior and eventually
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government"-Thomas Jefferson Jefferson and his fellow Americans experienced this firsthand under British Rule. As a result, the first governing document of the US created a federal government far too weak to function. To rectify this situation, the founding fathers created a new Constitution. However, there were disagreements between differing political parties that led to a compromise.
On September 17, 1787, The Philadelphia Convention emitted their own new constitution to the states for ratification. Instead, The Federalist profoundly accepted the Constitution for several reasons, which included that this new constitution allowed for higher and further central government, that was formerly undermined under the Articles of Confederation. In the other hand, The Anti-Federalist, did not want a authoritative and dominant central government, but instead, powerful state governments; in response to the new constitution, many of the Anti-Federalists began writing different essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it. In retaliation to the Anti-Federalists experiment at earning states to not rarify the Constitution, many federalists advanced a group of essays known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the ratification of the new law system.
It took the convincing of the Anti-Federalists to explain how the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and did not state the rights and freedoms of the people, therefore lacking a Bill of Rights. The Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights, and later the Constitution was ratified with nine out of thirteen votes on June 21 of 1788. Soon after the Constitution was ratified, the separation of powers was understood in the United States government. The separation of powers separated each branch of government.
They believed that the constitution was a living document and could be changed as the people in society changed. The Federalists believed that if needed the document should have been changeable if it was for the better of the country and the people. An example of this was when the government changed what was considered cruel and unusual punishment for the sake of the people. The
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.
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
However, the call for a Bill of Rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the future Constitution, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a briefer, clear Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government. But, the efforts of the Anti-Federalists were not enough to stop the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, but they managed to push for the creation of the Bill of Rights, which promised protection for the rights of all
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.
As others are the federalist, I’d be an anti-federalism. According to fact that they didn’t hate to support federalism. All they wanted to make more improvement. They worked so that the states would have more power. They didn’t want any secrets.
As reported by many history books, the Constitution required the approval of 9 out of 13 states to win ratification. The Federalists where the group that favored ratification. Mostly the Federalist were wealthy people. Many Americans who were not wealthy supported the Constitution was because they believed that the United States needed a new and stronger national government.
In 1787 many important people, like Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock, had different views and beliefs on ratifying the Constitution. This lead to two groups forming the federalists and the anti federalists. The federalist believed that the Constitution should be ratified for the sake of a strong government, while the anti federalist believed that the Constitution should not be ratified because of the lack of individual rights. Specifically, the antifederalists point of view was more reasonable towards the public due to the fact the anti federalists wanted power within each state and not the central government. One reason why the anti federalist’s point of view is more sensible than the federalists is because the anti federalist thought
Still the anti-federalist felt that the government had too much power and The Bill of Rights address the concerns of the anti-federalist. Which was to protect individual freedoms from the threat of potential tyrannous federal government. The compromise help establishes the Constitution and it has pretty much unchanged and still used
These people are known as federalists and antifederalists. The federalists are the people that support the constitution. These people believe that the constitution is the best way for the country to prosper. It is the only way to make sure this country stays the way it is. On the other side of the argument are the anti-federalists.
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.