Federalists Vs Federalist Analysis

909 Words4 Pages
After defeating the British in the Revolutionary War and declaring their independence, Americans made the first step to forging their new government. The Articles of Confederation were the first set of laws that the original thirteen states would abide by. But the Articles of Confederation was an unsuccessful attempt to better the conditions for the people of America. Due to the downfall of the Articles of Confederation people of power began to split apart and create two different views on how to fix the poorly run government. These groups were known as the Federalists and Anti-federalists. Federalists were for a strong central government and Anti-federalists were for a strong state government. The major arguments that were faced by the Federalists…show more content…
They also felt that a government that was based on the states decisions would make no progress to benefit the country. In a newspaper called The Massachusetts Sentinel the Federalists discussed the conditions of nation saying, “Let us look and behold the distresses which prevail in every part of our country...the complaints of our farmers...the complaints of every class of public creditors...the melancholy faces of our working people...our ships rotting in our harbors...the insults that are offered to the American name and character in every court of Europe...”. At the time of this being written the condition countries government was heading downhill. This interesting take on the countries condition by this newspaper highlights the distress that this group of people felt. The writer is trying to prove that without a strong central government the country will not make any significant advancements. The author of the newspaper is trying to convince the people that all of these negative effects are because of the lack of a strong federal government. Additionally, in George Washington's letter to John Jay, he declares that “We have probably have too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation...thirteen sovereign, independent, disunited States are in the habit off...refusing compliance with[our…show more content…
This political party felt that the ratification of the Constitution would only intensify the problems of the new country. An excerpt from Mercy Otis Warren’s book, “Observations on the New Federal Constitution and on the Federal and State Conventions”, explains “The executive and the legislature are so dangerously blended that they give cause for alarm...There is no provision for a rotation nor anything else to prevent a political office from remaining in the same hands for life.” Warren shows with this quote that with a new Constitution the powers of the executive and legislative branches were too close in power. She felt that with this imbalance of power the government would not last very long. Also, she is saying that there will be nothing they can do if they ratify the Constitution. The Anti-federalists also felt that there would be a large drop off in the rights the people have. According to Patrick Henry “Our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished, The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press...are rendered insecure.” Like many people in this party Patrick Henry felt that their rights would be taken away with the ratification of the Constitution. He felt
Open Document