What Is The Argument For The Anti-Federalists?

603 Words3 Pages
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. I believe that a government stronger than the Articles of Confederation was needed, but I would also have supported the Bill of Rights.…show more content…
Reflecting upon “the complaints of farmers … the complaints of every class public creditors” and the “melancholy faces of … working people” the Federalists knew that they needed change, and that change should come in the form of a strong national government (Frazier 61). The Federalists, in order to combat the Anti-Federalists’ fears about the national government having too much power that could result in tyranny, proposed the idea of checks and balances. Thomas Jefferson, a man with the grand vision of liberty on his mind, supported the “organization of the government into Legislative, Judiciary and Executive” branches, because with the ability of each branch to restrict the other, the possibility of tyranny and a corrupt national government was drastically reduced (Jefferson
Open Document