Are you a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? The proportional representation of the people and the government in the pursuit of equality and happiness is thoroughly explained through the Anti-Federalist party. Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of 'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress." By stating this he intended to provide the explanation and root of the problem; the egos of both parties, especially federalists were a constant wall blocking the parties from a resolution The Anti-Federalists were composed of many differential elements.
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.
They were passionate that the Constitution created a strong executive authority and that the president could easily become king by being reelected pver and over again. They also wanted a Bill of Rights specifically protecting citizens from the national government. Anti-federalists wanted fewer limits on political participation by all citizens. They didnt want the Constitution to go into effect, hoping that nine states wouldnt ratify it. Federalist and Anti-federalist depended on Virginia's vote since it was a big powerful state and smaller states would follow behind.
The new Constitution, they protested, took too much power away from the states and localities and gave it to the central government. In the long run, they charged, the Constitution would erode the faceto-face participation necessary for a healthy democracy. The Anti-federalists were not a marginal group; many state
anti-federalists led by Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation
The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.
They believed that the constitution was a living document and could be changed as the people in society changed. The Federalists believed that if needed the document should have been changeable if it was for the better of the country and the people. An example of this was when the government changed what was considered cruel and unusual punishment for the sake of the people. The
Jefferson v. Hamilton There are many conflicts in the early years of the American politics. There are two famous political parties during the early years of American Independence, and their ideologies were completely opposite. Thomas Jefferson was the third American President from 1801-1809. Alexander Hamilton was the founder of Federalist party and President Washington elected him as a first secretary of the treasurer.
Their belief was that the government would have too much power. The Anti-Federalists were satisfied with the way the Constitution was. The Anti-federalists thought that states should have more rights, that there should be a Bill of rights. They
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
Two opposing sides. Months of fierce debate. The fate of a young country at stake. In 1787, the newly independent United States proposed a new plan of government. The proposal set off a heated dispute between the Federalists and anti-Federalists.
Represented by Alexander Hamlton, they favored the constitution and were against the bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists feared/preferred a weak central government. They were represented by Thomas Jefferson, they favored the articles of confederation and were for the bill of rights. The warnings from the Anti-Federalists about the constitution were right. They warned the Federalists about the consequences of undelegated power becoming abused.
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Federalists were mostly merchants, bankers manufacturers, and wealthy farm owners. They basically owned land or some type of property and were well-educated. Most of these people lived in urban areas. Anti-Federalists were mostly artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, and poor farmers. They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas.
For instance, U.S. History said, “...They [Anti federalists] believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power...” (“Antifederalists”). Which meant that the anti federalists wanted the government to be small and not be runned by one person. Particularly, this also also lead to the anti federalists wanting to remain with the Articles Confederation because the document allowed the states to govern independently. Therefore if the nation was runned by the states and had a proper leader in each state than the nation would not become too powerful and would better the nation for the common
The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective
