Federalists And Anti-Federalists Analysis

This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.

A Anti-Federalists point of view is extremely different from a Federalists point of view. Anti-Federalists wanted to stay with the British government which at that time in history they were a monarchy. This happened to form a major problem considering the violence already happening between the government and their own people. With a monarchy the people were given no say in what would be happening to their country, while in a Anti-federalists community they were scared that a strong central government would take away their right and freedom. Marcus Junius Brutus shows a bit of dislike for a central government by stating this phrase in article no. 1, section 8, clause 18

Man joins the civil society to live in peace which is not possible in the state of nature. As previously stated the sovereign, the Leviathan is granted with extremely strong power. The covenant gives legitimacy to the absolute power of one person. One body of power, the sovereign (it can also be an assembly) is given absolute, undivided and

There were also many other times where he acted outside of his authority that is stated in the Constitution. His views before were very anti-federalist because he expressed his opposition to the whiskey tax. And he was very upset with the alien and sedition acts that John Adams put into place. His views changed very radically as he saw the need for a stronger central government and how essential it was for the new nation to be

The United States struggled under the Articles of Confederation, able to declare war and foreign policy, but unable to collect revenue to sustain its actions. The Constitution was designed to give more power to the national government primarily by empowering it with the responsibilities of establishing and maintaining central banking and financial policies. The national government was able to ask for monies from the states, but was not able to enforce collections of those monies needed to sustain their actions. The thirteen states essentially had recently revolted against Britain and its heavy handed tactics of collecting revenue and were almost immediately being asked to ratify and accept changes that would allow the new government to enforce funding as well.

They believed that this government could provide the stability and security against violent outrages. The foil of these people were the Antifederalist. The Antifederalists offered three objections: that the Congress had conspired under a “veil of mystery” to create a new form of government, that a strong national government would destroy states’ rights, and that the new system of government resembled and monarchy and that violated the principle of liberty that guided the American Revolution. They also pointed that the voters will not directly

The settlers felt that the British government were treating them unfairly, and their rights were violated. The conflict between the British Government and settler helped to gather political ideas to break away from the British Government and declare their own independent nation.

This allowed congress to create a state tax for people. Another strong weakness was the independent states and lack of a strong national government. The lack of central government in the confederation of the states, such as the taxless people or the devalued and varying currency in different colonies, wore down the foundation of the new nation. To address the problem in the creation of the Constitution, Jefferson created his three branch system which contained legislation, judicial, and executive.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was in shambles. Having left the rule of the British Crown, the States desired a government far from their previous predecessor. However, having given tremendous power to the states and very little to the federal, there was much chaos. A prime example of the failure of this document was Shay’s Rebellion, when farmers rebelled against government officials for debt that they could not repay due to faults in the Articles. Consequently, a new Constitution had to be ratified which resulted in many compromises between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

In an excerpt from “The Final Awakening,” when he describes “the intense combat between the old and modern current thought,” (Chen, 1), Chen describes the struggle between the old and the new. China’s traditional ideas and customs have been lost due to an overhaul of Western influence. If nationalism were to present itself again, citizens would have to fall back on their traditions. “Why should I reject the desires and influential elders, who are all a part of the people, to build a constitutional republic” (Chen, 1). Rather than Western influences continuing to change the Chinese landscape, he believes they should look to their elders who can begin to teach the youth how to merge the older customs with the advancements from the West.

Patrick Henry was one of those famous powerful figures, patriots, who provided support for the antifederalists. Anti Federalists were in debt and they feared a strong central government who would make them pay-off their debts. They thought that it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and there was no bill of rights, thus, they opposed the ratification of the constitution. As shown on Document G, even in a political system, with checks and balances, a certain branch can be too powerful, which can lead to tyranny of the common people. This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval.

Within today’s society individuals struggle to view one another as allies, rather people categorize other’s as being enemies. This sense of individuals being suspicious of one another is not a concept that is shocking to society. For instance, during the time of the founding father’s established the United States Constitution, there were two groups: the anti federalist and the federalist. The anti-federalist opposed the ratification of the Constitution because these people were eerie of a strong federalized government that infringed on individuals right’s. As the federalist supported the Constitution and advocated that the document protected individuals from government regulations.

47. Major crises faced by the Washington Administration: Small staff. Disagreements between Jefferson and Hamilton. His own cabinet split apart as Thomas Jefferson increasingly dissented from the economic policies proposed by Alexander Hamilton, most of which Washington supported. Even more disturbing to Washington was the emergence of a new form of political activity where the public divided into opposing parties.

They had to find the perfect balance for the executive branch. They could not give them too much power or else there would be an opportunity for tyranny and the possibility of another monarchy, but on the other hand, the branch had to possess enough power to do something and make a change. The problem faced with the articles of confederation was a lack of power and this cannot be fixed with more lack of power. Pinckney said, “How far do you intend to go in reducing the power of the states?” (Page 69).

The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.