The Pros And Cons Of The Federalists

During Revolutionary America, two political parties came about: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republics. The Federalists believed in supported federal administration and were highly in favor of the Constitution, while the Democratic-Republicans favored the idea of extending the Revolution to everyday people. Their party names reflect their standpoints.

The ideals and arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the late eighteenth century have many similarities to the Democrats and Republicans of today. Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the first two American political parties, debated over how the country would be shaped. First when developing the Articles of Confederation, then when developing the Constitution, the two parties argued how powerful the central government should be in comparison to the states. Federalists believed in a strong federal government. They believed that to have a country that functions well, there must be one authority that can arbitrate disagreements and make decisions to move the country forward. Anti-Federalists had the opposite reasoning. They were wary

The Federalists imagined that a strong national government was the right decision. They hoped to use the power of the constitution to unite the quarreling states. They also wanted to keep order amid the people. In the Federalists view, the rights of the states

The federalists were a group of led by Alexander Hamilton and were the first political party of the United States. Most of the federalist lived in urban areas.A few other members of the federalist group included: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. This group strongly stood for ratifying the constitution unlike the anti-federalists. One main reason this group stood for ratifying the constitution was because they wanted a stronger government that would aid with all of the debt and chaos caused by the American Revolution.

When the United States first gained their independence from Britain they needed to create a strong government for their colonies. The United States created their first government called the Articles of Confederation. The Articles came with many problems like no power to tax, no power to enforce the law, or regulate commerce. 10 years after having a weak government, they believed that a new type of government need to be created in order to become a strong government. They came up with the Constitution. The Constitution had to be ratified by 9 states in order to become America’s official government. In the states were supporters of the Constitution and opposers. Federalists were people that wanted the Constitution to be ratified and those

On the other hand, Cornell explains that this “will of the people” was often contorted on both sides as political debate. Thus, the “dissenting tradition” was not more than who was more qualified to run the government through countless debates and public appeal. As explained by Cornell,”Each side expended enormous energy crafting appeals to persuade citizens that it was better qualified to represent the will of the people” (Cornell 21). Thus, the Anti-Federalists were using the people to debate themselves in the public sphere to gain the will of the common man and avoid the evil corrupt centralized authority. This was often a sectionalized issue as well as it brought commercial vs farming interests which would be of constant debate going

The Hamiltonians, followers of Alexander Hamilton, and the Jeffersonians, followers of Thomas Jefferson created a faction of sorts after the establishment of the Constitution.

Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. 
On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were, and still are, very important to American History. These series of essays, mostly written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, were published to persuade Americans to ratify the new constitution. The new constitution would replace the Articles of Confederation, what the American’s had been living under at the time. The constitution highlighted an issue that the articles did not; empowering the central government like never before. Allowing the central government to act in the interest of the United States. The main point of The Federalist Papers and the Constitution was to unify America. The Federalist Papers outlined what American’s can expect from the new constitution. Between 1786 and 1787 they were used to educate American’s about the constitution and they are used for the same reason today.

Thomas Jefferson- one of the great American founding fathers with exquisite taste in architecture and French wine, but also known to hold a controversial set of ideas- fought frequently and strongly against the Federalists ideas before he achieved Presidency. Jefferson and the other republican democrats who followed suit held the belief that the powers of the federal government should be left strictly to what is granted to them in the Constitution. Those powers not specifically addressed in the Constitution would then be delegated to the state governments. This is to ensure that the federal government did not have too much power as they believe a country runs best under a form of self-government. While on the other corner of the ring, the Federalists believed that the newly founded country would run best if the national government was strong and powerful and in effect if the Constitution was loosely interpreted. This started a series of issues between the two opposing sides with the Federalists pretty much winning every issue. From the issue of funding the war debt, whether a bank of America should be created, to the Alien and Sedition Act; the two sides did not see eye to eye. However, when Jefferson became president, it could be argued that the same abuse of power that he criticized the Federalists to have done could be argued against his own presidency. It is more than fair to say that Jefferson was a hypocrite not only from a Federalist standpoint but also from the

After a fiercely fought revolution, the newly independent American nation struggled to establish a concrete government amidst an influx of opposing ideologies. Loosely tied together by the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen sovereign states were far from united. As growing schisms in American society became apparent, an array of esteemed, prominent American men united in 1787 to form the basis of the United States government: the Constitution. Among the most eminent members of this convention were Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. These men, held to an almost godly stature, defined the future of the nation; but were their intentions as honest as they seemed? Joseph J. Ellis’s groundbreaking Founding Brothers

Today’s America has evolved differently from the intention of a certain group of the founder’s. This essay takes the stance that America in 2017 is moving closer to the viewpoint of the Federalists, compared to the Republicans. First, one must analyze the two parties, then draw the conclusion with supportive facts. Lastly, the comparisons will be summarized and the differences will be minimized.

In this edition of the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton stresses over and over again the importance of unity between the states. Without unity, it seems as though our country will cease to exist as we know it. While Hamilton does not come right out and state, we need unity, he does make his point very clear. In using the Constitution as the perfect example of what the United States needed at the time, Hamilton manages to bring everything back to one central theme. We cannot have unity between the states if we do not introduce the Constitution.

As the Revolutionary War came to an end with the signing of The Treaty of Paris a new country was born, not ideologically, that had been settled by generations of geographically aided independence. The signing of the Treaty saw the structural birth of an American Democracy fueled by economics. The signing of the Treaty meant the United States would be recognized on the world stage as a country and not a band of rebels crying about new taxes. It is important to make this distinction because The Second Continental Congress had little authority to construct a federal government from the ground up. The Second Congress had formed in Philadelphia after battles broke out between colonists and the British Army. While the Second Congress initially met to discuss how to resist British rule, it quickly became the de-facto government of the new United States (Continental Congress, n. d, para. 7).

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). Second, only a small republic can secure a genuine responsibility of the government to the people (Storing, 16). Finally, only a small republic can form the kind of