The main difference between the Federalists and Anti-federalists was their view on the formation of a stronger U.S. Federal Government. This led the Federalists to support ratification of the Constitution and the Anti-federalists to oppose it. The Federalists thought the central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation were weak and wanted a strong central government that would rule the U.S. citizens directly and not through the state government. On the contrary, the Anti-federalists felt that a strong federal government would take a way from individual rights.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The Federalists were more educated while the Anti-Federalists were of poor families and less educated. They believed the Article of Confederation were ineffective. They believed the government should be strong and should protect the people. The Federalists favored the Constitution while the Anti-Federalists opposed it.
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.
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.
The structure and powers of the federal government changed under the Constitution as compared to the Articles of Confederation. Many people, known as the anti-Federalists, opposed these changes while on the contrary, many people, known as the Federalists, supported them. The framework and function of the federal government changed drastically under the Constitution. The federal government was much stronger under the Constitution because it was given the power to run the states under more unified control.
The Federalists want a strong government and strong executive branch. The Anti-Federalist oppose the Constitution. They didn’t want to give up any of their state's’ power. The Articles of Confederation are a written document that establishes a function of the national government in the United States. The Constitution is saying that we people are guaranteed certain basic rights, have a national government and have fundamental laws.
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.
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.
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
Question 3: “Federalist or Antifederalist? Pick one (or neither) and then defend your position.” Answer: After the passage of the Constitution in 1787, a fierce debate erupted between those who support a strong, national government, known as the Federalists, and those who opposed the creation of a central government that would have more power than the states, known as the Anti-Federalists. I chose the Federalist, and here’s why: In the Anti-Federalist view, the creation of a strong, national government would seem unreasonable.
Represented by Alexander Hamlton, they favored the constitution and were against the bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists feared/preferred a weak central government. They were represented by Thomas Jefferson, they favored the articles of confederation and were for the bill of rights. The warnings from the Anti-Federalists about the constitution were right. They warned the Federalists about the consequences of undelegated power becoming abused.
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.
During the ratification of the constitution, the debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists raised many important points. Some main points included were- power of central government, role of the states and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Based on the principals brought up, I would consider myself an anti-federalist. I would consider myself this because I agree with their principles and ideals on States’ right. They believe that the power should focus mainly on the people rather than on a federal 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
Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.
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.