They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas. 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.
Federalist V. Anti-Federalist Federalist and Anti-Federalist were two factions most commonly known for debating during the transition from the Articles of Confederation of the United States Constitution. Both sides debated many things, including the liberties of a citizen in the United States. I believe that the Anti-Federalist 's ideals best preserved the liberties of Americans. The Anti-Federalists believed that there were three defects of a large republic. First, only a small republic can enjoy a voluntary attachment of the people to the government and a voluntary obedience to the laws (Storing, 16).
Federalism splits power between the state and federal government, protecting each government to not gain more power than another. The separation of power allows each side to have their own rights which grant a “double security” to the people (Document A). The separation of power protects the citizens from tyranny so that the
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests” ("Patrick Henry Quotes") said Patrick Henry, a Founding Father of The Declaration of Independence in the 18th century. The government should be a tool of the people, rather than the converse. Though the government supposedly serves the well-being of the people, it does not satisfy every individual’s needs and can ignore opinions which may be of value and moral righteousness. With this being said, it is indeed appropriate to defy the government under certain conditions. To begin, disobeying the government should be considered necessary as long as the people peaceably act and reasonably state their opinions.
This can guard against tyranny because when one person gains too much power, then tyranny is almost guaranteed because there would not be an easy way to stop them from doing only what they desire. For example, if the president had all the power over everyone they would be able to do whatever they want and make laws that maybe no one agrees with. Next, if the power is divided and shared between people, then there will be a strong central government. John Madison presented this idea. When there is a strong central government then it means that the government would have a strong middle, which can guard against tyranny because it keeps the government successful and strong.
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 and it states the following; “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ the thing that
Primarily, individuals such as Andrew Hamilton and James Madison, Federalists, believed in a stronger central government whereas others such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, Anti-Federalists, were for larger state government. Federalists were typically untrusting of citizens and the American people, and felt that the more educated individuals involved in government would govern. In contrast, individuals such as Henry and Jefferson believed that government was for the people, and should be given to the people to handle. In today’s standards, the Federalist views typically align with those of the Democratic platform while those with Anti-Federalist views align with those of the Republican
The proposal set off a heated dispute between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. The Federalists and anti-Federalists made certain arguments to support or oppose the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. On one hand, the Federalists claimed that the ratification of the Constitution would, in turn, resolve the troubles that barraged society. In contrast, the anti-Federalists found the Constitution not steady enough to maintain justice and to protect human rights. To begin, the Federalists argued that ratifying the Constitution was necessary because of the instability of the states
The first method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Federalism. Federalism is the division of power between state and national government. In Document A it interprets that the governments will each have a portion of power and not be able to have all the power. This evidence helps explain why the Constitution guards against tyranny because Federalism will allow both governments to have limited powers. Another method the Constitution protects against tyranny is Separation of Powers.
It follows, then that federalism as a concept is subject to interpretation from multiple perspectives. In the context of this discussion and relevance with the ongoing debate, we’ll analyze federalism through the first theory for ease and clarity. The origin of federalism comes from the Latin word “foedus” meaning “pact” or “covenant” (Heywood 382). In 1789, the United States of America was