Federalist Vs Anti-Federalists

People, mostly the Antifederalists, were scared for a document that put such a great amount of power back into a national government; the last thing they wanted was a tyranny. As a matter of fact, the purpose of Federalist No. 51 was to make the audience understand the proposed structure for the United States Government would make liberty possible. James Madison used Federalist No. 51 to expressly defend

Like every other idea of Jefferson's, Hamiltons were the opposite. Hamilton wanted a balance of agriculture, trade, and manufacturing. For the structure, Jefferson thought that there should be a strong state government, while Hamilton wanted a strong central government. Also, Hamilton thought that the American government should be like the British government, but Jefferson preferred more of a democratic government. Hamilton wanted to establish a national bank like that in England too.

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

This document (the Federalist) will provide all the reasons to support the new plan of government described in the U.S. Constitution, and responses to each of the criticisms of the plan. Opponents to the new plan criticize it most on it creating a strong central government that will be abusive to individual liberty. However, an energetic government is crucial to the protection of individual liberty. The plan of government under the Articles of Confederation was unable to effectively protect individual liberties because it did not act directly upon the people, and had no authority to enforce its laws. One of the biggest problems resulting from the Articles of Confederation was that there was no means to enforce unity amongst the states.

They feared without it, their rights would not be acknowledged. They felt that the Constitution only favored the wealthy men and their power. The anti federalists were afraid of a strong central government when it came to the government taking over their property and using them. For example, the 3rd amendment states that homeowners should not be obligated to open their homes to soldiers and the soldiers should not be allowed to take over one 's home. This proves that they had to address this issue for something to be done to stop this, they must have been feeling like their lives were

Jefferson thought that the constitution did not give the national government the power to establish the bank though, they wanted to fix the world 's national debt to make a safe place for fund, tax, and collections to be kept. The Federalists liked the way money was made in Great Britain, so they would start that in some states. The Federalist are the most qualified for presidency because they stay neutral in foreign affairs, have a strong government, and can fix the world 's national

Tyranny is when a person or a group of people have absolute power. The idea of the Constitution came when some believed the Articles of Confederation were weak. The Article of Confederation were weak in ways such as weak central government, no money so they could not tax, boundary disputes, states are fighting and arguing and no respect for small nations and states. While framing a new Constitution James Madison was worried that this Constitution, that was meant to guard against tyranny would possibly lead to some form of tyranny. With the careful writing from our founding fathers the Constitution guards against tyranny by using a system of Checks and Balances and the system of Separation of Powers.

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.

He described several discrepancies regarding monarchies including negative effects of hereditary succession, calling the practice of passing crowns through family bloodlines "evil" (Paine, 62) and unfair to the common man. Paine feared that such a rule of American colonies would not be good for the colonial society. The English Bill of Rights was outlined to limit the powers of the reigning monarch in order to expand more power to the English Parliament and ensure equality for English citizens. Fed up with the misdeeds of James II and previous rulers, the document was a breaking point for Parliament and English citizens who did not have basic civil rights due to the absolutism of English monarchies. The document called for a more structured political authority through Parliament and not through a monarch who could make laws and impose taxes at their

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.