Differences Between The Anti-Federalist And Anti Federalists

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution of the United States of America was signed. It was signed by some of America’s greatest heroes. Men like George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. But just signing it wasn’t good enough. It needed to be ratified. To ratify something means to give it formal consent. In other words, make it valid. To be able to ratify the constitution, nine out of the thirteen states had to decide to abandon the articles of confederation, and support the constitution. With New Hampshire being the ninth state, the Constitution was ratified. Through this process, these men split into two groups as they argued their positions. Federalist, and Anti-Federalist. The Federalist wanted a strong central government, while the Anti-Federalist were looking more for individual freedoms. Federalist believed that the best way to protect individual freedoms was to have a large republic, but Anti Federalist opposed. They believe that to protect our rights, we must have a small republic. Anti-Federalist concluded “competition between interest

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

The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously….. (1).” This group did not the Constitution did not properly state the rights and powers of the three branches of government, states’ rights, etc. In order to please the Anti-federalists, the Preamble was put into place to allow American citizens know the central government’s rights, and states’ rights.

When the states were first independent, they needed a government to run the country, thus creating the Articles of Confederation. Under The Articles of Confederation, the government was feeble and the country was failing. America was in major debt due to The Revolutionary War, states weren’t paying their federal duties, and Congress was unable to tax the states, which led to the government having no money. The image depicted was Shays Rebellion. Shays Rebellion was an army of Massachusetts farmers, led by Daniel Shays, who had created a rebellion against government, angered by taxes forced upon them. This opened the eyes of the citizens, showing that their government was weak, hence the Constitutional Convention being held. The original goal

The author of anti-federalist 17# was Robert Yates (not the serial killer), at the time he was a politician and judge also the oldest of his family. he lived in the state of New York and tried to run for governor. The document yates wrote was just about states that the anti-federalists did not desire a constitution as a result of they felt that it 'd offer the central government an excessive amount of power which it 'd remove all power from the states.

Before the Constitution was approved and known as the structure of our government, we had the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was a broken system, with no central government to collect taxes or enforce law we were burying ourselves in massive debt while States taxed each other. There was no National Court System or Supreme Court which made serious cases harder to deal with often having a less just outcome. These are the few of the multiple flaws and reasons it was necessary to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

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.

At the Constitutional Convention, our founding fathers met to reconstruct the Articles of Confederation, not knowing that they would create the United States Constitution, an entire new format of government. They wanted to create a government that was powerful yet restricted in certain ways, in order to create equal representation for all people.

During the time Federalist 10 was written the Federalists were using the papers to help convince the states to ratify the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation was the first document designed to govern after the colonies declared independence from Great Britain. It gave little power to the central government, denied it the power to tax and completely left out a judicial branch (history notes). Overall it was a weak union. (cite history notes?) When talk of the Constitution arises it is understandable that colonists were weary of a government that would have that much power after they worked so hard to break away from Great Britain. The Federalists firmly believed that the Constitution would strengthen the Federal union and not give too much power to the central

The antifederalists were a group of men who in general were ill educated compared to the federalists. Some of these people include back country farmers, poor farmers and illiterate debaters. They did not want a strong central government and believed in the Articles of Confederation. They thought the Bill of Rights were necessary to protect their rights. They feared without it, their rights would not be acknowledged. They felt that the Constitution only favored the wealthy men and their power.

1. What are the primary differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in their views of federal authority?

“Give me liberty, or give me death!” (Patrick Henry) The introduction of the Constitution brought along a frenzied dispute between two parties of people known as the Federalists, and Anti-Federalists. Each of these parties had theories on whether or not they believed the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists, a like James Madison, were the individuals who were for the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists shared the belief that the Constitution would bring a good balance of power. While the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry, were the exact opposite; they were against the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists were concerned about their liberty and the government being given too much power.

The American Constitution had a fight between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Some of the best political people in the world got together in Philadelphia and other cities to find common ground within governmental organization. The Federalists and the anti-Federalists had some great political thoughts that agreed as well as disagreed with some of the political views. They argued what they believed, so of course their opinions were totally different from each other.

The new constitution couldn’t please everyone. Some people liked it but some didn't. The two sides were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were in favor of ratifying the Constitution, whereas the Anti-Federalists were opposed to it. They would have debates about ratifying the Constitution. They needed to debate in each state to decide if the state was voting for or against the Constitution and the new government.

There are two sides to every story, this includes the ratification of the Constitution. There were the people that were for ratification of the Constitution called Federalists, and there were people against it called Anti-Federalists.