Federalists Vs Federalist Analysis

Liberty: The Preservation Then and Now I. Preface “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” (Madison, 1). Madison uses this example to express that men need a strong government. The previous governing document of The United States, The Articles of Confederation, emphasized the freedom from national authority but ultimately failed. 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.

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.

The state of Massachusetts had to rely on another state’s militia to control the rebellion. Many people believed that this event was caused by the Articles of Confederation being weak. The Articles of Confederation was a government system created in a time of haste and was a temporary solution. They caused more problems for America then they did solving them. This constitution focused too much on giving more power to the people and not enough on giving the right amount of power to the government.

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

In the 18th Century Federalist and Anti-Federalists went head to head, after the Constitution was created it had to be ratified by the states. There were a number of people at the time that did not want the federal or national government to hold power. These people were the Anti-Federalist, and they wanted sovereign and independent government. The Anti-Federalist had many strong members such as Patrick Henry and George Mason that were afraid if the Constitution was ratified they would lose their power. On the other side the Federalist wanted the ratification as they wanted a large nation.

They would not pay it” (Brinkley 94). This conversation between Parliament and Franklin goes on to denote that the American population believes that the tax to be unconstitutional. A conflict of ideologies had risen; Parliament believed that the Crown had the right to govern the Colony and the population no longer accepting authority of the ruling government to tax its population. Furthermore, his deposition further exposed that if the Stamp Act was not repealed, there would be “a total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all commerce that depends on that respect and affection” (Brinkley

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.

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

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

They believe that the government of the founding fathers is not keeping up with the rapid changes in society and that it must adapt to the new challenges (PR pg. 333). Although both the progressive party and the founding fathers declare that they want to guard against tyranny and uphold the good of the people, they have different approaches to the issue. The founding fathers