Similarities Between The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

One of the reasons the Articles of

There were also many other times where he acted outside of his authority that is stated in the Constitution. His views before were very anti-federalist because he expressed his opposition to the whiskey tax. And he was very upset with the alien and sedition acts that John Adams put into place. His views changed very radically as he saw the need for a stronger central government and how essential it was for the new nation to be

During the Revolutionary era, the birth of the U.S. Constitution gave way to the political divide between the two polarizing philosophies of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After the economic pitfalls and decentralization the Articles of Confederation had left behind, action was taken to ameliorate its failures. With the creation of the Federalist party in by founder Alexander Hamilton, its members advocated for a stronger national government and defended the validity of the Constitution’s ratification. Contrarily, the Constitution was met with skepticism on behalf of the Anti-Federalists, who believed it would undermine state sovereignty and infringe upon their human rights. The two parties hailed from different socioeconomic backgrounds,

Party government, also known as responsible parties, is an idea supported by people who believe that strong government could be efficient to deal with economic and social problems at national levels. This “party government” is significantly different from the traditional American limited government, including a clear statement about principles, accountable candidates, differentiated campaigns, and responsible officeholders for party programs. For the United States to create responsible party government, there are three major prerequisites. Strong presidents such as Reagan and Bush can make the public recognize the gap between parties and have control over the Congress on bills and policies. However, such powerful presidents would bring a “presidential government” instead of responsible parties.

These are some of the most important reasons we sought our independence. The Whiskey Rebellion affected our country in ways that was not thought could happen and most of the people thought that they fighting against taxes had gone in vain, and they felt that the newly formed government had stabbed them in the back by going against what

The Americans faced taxes such as the Sugar Act, Stamp Act and Townshend Act due to Britain having to make up for the money they had lost to war. The people of America essentially felt that Britain was being unreasonable “for imposing taxes on us without our consent”. The taxes were passed by Parliament in which there were no American representation. This lead to Americans protesting the taxes that lacked representation and the Virginia House of Burgess stating that "the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them... is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and [is] the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom". The Stamp Act caused Americans to protest and refuse to buy or import British goods.

The Americans were under the rules of Britain. The Americans were furious by how they were being treated and controlled by the British. The English were putting high taxes on the Americans and they got mad because they had no say in the matter.   Then they had no representation of saying whatever they wanted and they couldn’t speak their mind because they weren’t allowed, however they could start a rebellion to speak to the British and make their voices be heard.

In the 1790s two major parties dominated the political scene. Those parties were people who sided with Alexander Hamilton, known as “Federalists” while the people who supported Thomas Jefferson were the “Anti-Federalists”. During the conclusion of the table, it was quite evident that the Anti-Federalists were considered to be more liberal, or in a broader sense, Democratic than the other party at the time. This can be inferred through the notion that they supported France throughout the French Revolution because they hated Britain because they once controlled everything they did; while on the contrary, the Federalists, which consisted of mostly business people, supported Britain due to their importance in trades. They also were against the

The many Imperial Policies placed on the colonists by England between 1763 and 1776 resulted in mass protest from the thirteen colonies. The colonists resisted the many Acts and Taxes placed on them by forming rebel groups and using many methods to try and undermine British authority. They also did not agree with England’s government and sought to create their own. An analysis of British Imperial Policies in the late 1700s reveals that they intensified colonial resistance to British rule and fortified their commitment to republican values.

When it came to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists the differences are many and at times very complex, due to the beliefs that the Federalists are nationalist at heart. The Federalists had an incredibly big role in shaping the new Constitution, which the Federalists used to create a stronger Constitution at great cost to the Anti-Federalists. If you ask the Anti-Federalists They believe that should be a ratification of the US Constitution in every state. But due to the Anti-Federalists being poor at organizing they really didn’t gain any ground. Although they didn’t achieve their goals of ratification of the US Constitution, but they did force the first congress under a new Constitution along with the bill of rights.

The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.

According to the map “Ratification of the Federal Constitution, 1787-1790,” a large amount of the states had a federalist majority, meaning that they supported the Constitution. Most of the Federalists were rich men who were large landowners, judges, lawyers, leading clergymen and merchants. Led by Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, James Madison, and George Washington, federalists “believed the national government was too wear under the Articles of Confederation” and wanted a strong federal government (Document 3). However, the antifederalists disagreed with the Constitution. They “feared strong national government would lead to tyranny” and wanted strong state governments (Document 3).

While with the Articles of Confederation, it was the states that held majority of the power and jurisdiction of the United States; these powers were being granted to the new National Government. The individual state governments would though maintain some of the authoritarian power that was granted in the Articles of Confederation. This was a major concern of our founding fathers, they did not want a national government that would become so powerful, that its’ citizenry would become its subjects such as that they revolted against, England. So of this fear was born the separation of powers between the different branches of the national government. Both houses of the legislature would have to agree on a cause for a law to be enacted, and once approved it would be sent to the newly created executive branch for that elected official to sign into law.

They had to find the perfect balance for the executive branch. They could not give them too much power or else there would be an opportunity for tyranny and the possibility of another monarchy, but on the other hand, the branch had to possess enough power to do something and make a change. The problem faced with the articles of confederation was a lack of power and this cannot be fixed with more lack of power. Pinckney said, “How far do you intend to go in reducing the power of the states?” (Page 69).

Due to the many weaknesses of the Articles the convention that was held to revise the articles ended up throwing away the Articles of Confederation and starting all over again. A weak congress was one of these weaknesses. “The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments” (Library of Congress). The main problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it failed to give power to the federal government. The new states needed to unify under one constitution and they needed to establish a soverign central government.