2.03 Federalist vs Antifederalist

In: Historical Events

Submitted By wolfylick
Words 545
Pages 3
If you were to ask me whether I sided with the anti-federalist or the federalist, you might be surprised at what I would say. Maybe not for the reasons you think. In my opinion, I side with the federalist. I’m all for order and I don’t like change so much but to make a country better you need to change some things. Things will constantly be changing and that is fine. A strong central government is very important. The federalist wanted to see a change to improve the country as a whole whereas the anti-federalist wanted to keep the monarchy ways.
The anti-federalist and federalist had different views as to how a country should be ran. Both did have ideas to help the country and make it better. Federalist wanted a central federal government, a central bank, and an army. They cared about the governed and not just the ones who govern. In federalist paper no. 39 it says “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from and inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claims for their government and honorable title of republic.” Not only did the federalist care about giving too much power to the important people, they also wanted to have control of the government. It states this in federalist paper no. 59: “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the member of the others…. But great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consist of giving to those who administer each department in the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of others.”…...

Similar Documents

Antifederalist

...The government is made up of two groups: federalists and anti- federalists. When the time comes to ratification the two groups usually have two very different opinions. Being an Anti- Federalist myself doesn’t mean that I am against the federation. It means that I don’t think we should have a strong central government. “…affirm that bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous.” This quote is completely one sided and is very biased. What it’s saying is that the bill of rights is something to be “scared”. It is very up front with its statement in thinking it’s not worthy enough for the Constitution. “It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions.” This quote says that it’s pretty much pointless to oppose constitutional barriers to being selfish and only about itself. It is actually a lot worse than that because it is like saying that the Constitution is taking power or rights from you by legal force. It talks about how it’s like a germ and it spreads like the flue almost. I strongly disagree with the first quote because I believe that the Bill of Rights is very necessary and that we actually need it! I think this because it increases the protection for individual rights. Many wouldn’t have approved of......

Words: 396 - Pages: 2

Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans

...The United States of America was founded on a Constitution that was supposed to preserve our freedoms and certain liberties. All Americans at that time wanted to keep America a free an independent nation with rights for its people. However there was two different groups, the Federalists lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson, which thought this could be achieved in very different ways. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were very different in their methods to try and develop America as a nation. The two were very much alike because they both were avid Americans, and wanted to see the nation succeed. Both men were very involved in the U.S. Government and tried to voice their opinions on the best method for success. Neither of them would give any ground on their ideas, which created great conflict in the first years of the U.S. Government. Alexander Hamilton was a member of the Federalist Party. He supported a larger central government where the states had less power than the Federal government. Hamilton believed that bigger central government would provide assistance to programs and business to help them succeed. “Not only the wealth but the independence and security of a country appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufacturers” (Document C).Hamilton thought that the U.S. should lean more towards a manufacturing economy opposed to an agricultural one. Along with that idea Hamilton thought that...

Words: 906 - Pages: 4

Antifederalist

...The Anti Federalists The Supporters of the Proposed Constitution Called Themselves Federalists They favored the creation of a strong federal government that shared power with the states federalist’s policies, emphasized commercial and diplomatic harmony with Britain, domestic order and stability and a strong national government under powerful executive and judicial branches. Their new solutions were a significant change of political beliefs in that period. Federalist paper 10 is thought of as the most famous and important federalist paper. Madison wrote about the problems with factions and interest groups. A common fear for the new government was that small groups or factions would compromise the integrity and stability of the government. Madison suggests a plan for a democracy that allows a vote per person, but also states the use of a republic, where citizens vote for delegates to make decisions for them. This is our modern day Congress, representative democracy. “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief’s of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” They see this as a way to protect from minority factions taking over the government but also as......

Words: 571 - Pages: 3

2.03 the Anti-Federalists

...FEDERALISTS The federalists wanted and believed in a central government that’s slip into branches and ran by the people. They really wanted a government that was strong and for the people. The anti-federalists wanted to stay under the control of the British in a monarchy government. The federalists wanted the constitution ratified just as it was immediately. FEDERALISTS vs. ANTI-FEDERALISTS The federalists and the anti-federalists had two totally different views on hot the U.S should be governed. They both had their own ideas of what they thought would help make our county better. The federalists believed and wanted a strong federal government, an army and a central bank. With our country in mind they felt that our country should be ran by the people. Stated by the federalist no.39 “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion of a favored class of it; otherwise handful of tyrannical nobles exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers might aspire the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable tittle of republic.” The federalists believed in separating the government into branches so that the government could be kept under control. Also, stated by the federalists no. 51 “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and constituted that the members of the others.. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the......

Words: 667 - Pages: 3

2.03 the Anti Federalists

...the solution to a better government. Of course a central power that would have checks and balances, there would not be any advantages of taking over the government. Many debates are being made, the antifederalists say the constitution is bringing a central government with too much power. “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ But even though the constitution gives a certain amount of power to the central government it still created a method of checks and balances to prevent a future dictatorship. Also it is known all the troubles that the country went through by giving supreme power to the states. And the constitution still makes clear the states rights. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” In the constitution the government has power but not enough, it is seen that the governed will have the right to accept or not a governement. Another issue discussed was that the Antifederalists believed that it was necessary to have a certain writes written. ¨We shall add a bill of rights through the amendment process.¨ “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in......

Words: 639 - Pages: 3

Federalist and Anit-Federalist

...power to coin money and back it up with previous standard, and no money to raise an army or navy. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. They argued that the document would give the country an entirely new form of government. They saw no sense in throwing out the existing government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country. The Anti-Federalists feared that the Constitution gave the president too much power and that the proposed Congress would be too higher-class in nature; with too few representatives for too many people. They also criticized the Constitution for its lack of a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists also shared the feeling that so large a country as the United States could not possibly be controlled by one national government. Although the Anti-Federalists were united in their opposition to the Constitution, they did not agree on what form of government made the best alternative to it. Some still believed that the Articles of Confederation could be amended in such a way that they would provide a workable confederation. Some wanted the Union to break up and re-form into three or four different confederations. Others were even ready to accept the Constitution if it were amended in such a way that the rights of citizens and states would be more fully protected. The Federalists focused their arguments on the lack of the quality in national government under the Articles of......

Words: 489 - Pages: 2

Federalist

...FEDERALIST The Federalist Party was in favor of the newly formed constitution. One of the main objects of the federal constitution is to secure the union and in addition include any other states that would arise as a part of the union. The federal constitution would also set its aim on improving the organization of the union. Which would include improvements on toads and interior navigation. The Federalists believed that each state should find an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection. Americans were very suspicious of the government, but the Anti-Federalist was very distrustful of the government in general and strong national government. The mistrust was the foundation of their opposition to the constitution. The Anti-Federalist argued that the constitution had many flaws. Anti-Federalists feared that because of the flaws in the constitution, that the new national government would be a threat to their national rights. They also thought that the constitution had been developed by a privileged group to create a national government for the purpose of serving its own selfish interest. They thought the only safe government that if it had a local and closely linked with the will of the people, as we have yearly elections and replacing people in key positions. The Federalist knew that many members of Congress and the state governments were against the new constitution, because it reduced their powers. So the Federalists decided not to ask the......

Words: 283 - Pages: 2

Anti-Federalists

...2.03 The Anti-federalists My position as a federalist is to ratificate the constitution while also creating a strong central government by separation of both of the powers combined. All the federalists were always strong believers in the constitution, believing that this ratification was the only way they were all able to achieve a fair society where all people can all have their rights to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, while also wanting to help shape future analysis of the Constitution for the better and in beneficial ways. By them being able to build a sufficient government with the foundation of the basis of popular sovereignty, without the need of sacrificing any sovereignty of the varied states fairness of the new government, it can be secured and work as it should. The rich would be happy in this case, because they would feel like the new Constitution was benefcial on their part, because the fact that rich's votes would earn much more value than the less fortunate in the states like what they wanted to achieve. They can possibly keep the potential of tyranny from becoming something dangerous to their people and they know that safeguards they have with the government will keep it from overpowering. The constitution should be ratified as a Federalist because the nation might of never survived without the constitution by their side leading them and a stronger government was necessary at this very point in desperate time. The federalists......

Words: 875 - Pages: 4

2.03 Antifederals Assessment

...Hannah Carr United States Government March 18, 2015 Horton 2.03 The Antifederalist Assessment So I have chosen to use Federalists because our government is strong and it is beneficial to our country, the federalists wanted a change in the government, while the Anti-Federalists wanted a monarchy. The Anti-Federalists way would have led our country to corruption. The federalists covered the worries of the people and the corruption of the government while adding in people opinions. Anti-Federalists refer to a coalition of people that opposed the creation of the Constitution that would lead to a stronger U.S. federal government. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States would be because of the governments growing power. The previous constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation, gave the states more authority. “Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power.“ The group of supporters that wanted to put the Constitution into place were known as the Federalists, they got their name from the term “federalism” which implies a strong central government. Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules in which the power to govern is shared......

Words: 306 - Pages: 2

The Federalist Papers

...Prof. Gillooly  03/06/2015  The Significance of the Federalist Papers  The Federalist Papers, is a compilation of 85 articles, advocating the ratification of the  proposed Constitution of the United States. These series of articles were published by Alexander  Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay between October 1787 and May 1788. The overall  intention of the Federalist Papers was to explain the advantages of the proposed Constitution  over the prevailing Articles of Confederation. The Federalist Papers impacted the ratification of  the Constitution by making some of their most important objections, including the significance  of having a Constitution, acknowledging to the disagreements made by the Antifederalists, and  defending conflicting arguments made against the attributes of the executive and judicial branch  as specified in the proposed Constitution.   Before the ratification of the Constitution, the central government under the Articles of  Confederations was very weak and in jeopardy of falling apart. Alexander Hamilton, James  Madison, and John Jay, who were Federalists believed as well that the Articles of Confederation  was too weak to maintain a powerful central government and needed to be restored by the U.S  Constitution. The fundamental goal of the U.S constitution was to secure the rights of the U.S  citizens and for the federal government to strive for the common good of the individuals. The ......

Words: 1423 - Pages: 6

2.03 Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

...The federalist structure of government is the one that is best for this nation. Federalists wanted to make a change; a change for the people. They want an established government that is ruled or governed by the people, unlike the Anti-Federalists who wanted to keep the same monarchy government and didn’t seek a change for the people. A monarchy has proven to be corrupt because only the higher-class had the right to power and the lower-class had no say. For this reason, the Federalists wanted to separate the powers of the government into their own branches in order to avoid a corrupt government. Because of this, Federalism would be the best option for this country. Federalists strongly desired a government for the people. They also wanted the constitution to be ratified as quickly as possible with the use of editing. Federalists also believed that some power should be taken out of the states and put into the government, and that the government should be respectfully separated into three branches. Federalist paper no. 39 states: “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of the republicans and claim for their governments the honorable title of republic.” By separating the government into different branches, the Federalists has the idea......

Words: 615 - Pages: 3

Module 2.03 Us History

...2.03 When choosing your position to be Federalist or Antifederalist, the best choice would be a Federalist. In being a Federalist, they agree on having a strong central government, under the Constitution. Unlike the anti-federalist how don’t agree with that. Anti- Federalists “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety. “ Federalist "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." These 2 quotes have the idea of security and safety. Being a federalist and under the Constitution, it is like choosing the stronger more central government. Which therefore will be the one to protect more efficiently. The anti-federalists where mostly farmer and workers when the federalists is everyone how is much bigger than them. They believed the Constitution made the nation too strong and took too much control over the individual states. Being strong is a good thing. We need control because without control there will be chaos. We wouldn’t be living the life were living right now without this protection and control. I disagree with the anti-federalist because I’m all about having a strong nation. I......

Words: 293 - Pages: 2

2.03 Anti Federalist

...Federalism In a monarchy, the people have no say in the government, while the anti-federalists wanted to keep our government as it is. They both are most likely alike. This would cause chaos and hostility amongst the citizens of the nation. The federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted some of the state powers for itself. Also, the supported the division of the government into three branches Anti-Federalist and Federalist The federalist were for the people and not just in favor for the ruling class. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. Stated in the federalist paper in No.3 "it is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." The federalist also wanted to separate the powers of the government into different branches so that the government could be kept under control. The Anti-federalists wanted to stay with the British government. The British was a monarchy at the time. It would be a corrupt government since only the rich could have a say in the government but the poor couldn't. The united states did not approve of it. " And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws,......

Words: 458 - Pages: 2

Federalist or Antifederalist

...Choose whether to argue as a Federalist or as an Anti-Federalist. Review the lesson to make sure you understand their main points. Using quotes from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, write an opinion article for a newspaper, or create a speech podcast to convince people in your state to agree with your position. Include the following in your speech or article: teens shaking hands after playing a game of tennis © 2012 Polka Dot/Thinkstock introductory paragraph that clearly states your position as a Federalist or Anti-Federalist at least two paragraphs describing differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist points of view. Use at least two quotes from each of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. If you would like to explore more of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers to find your own quotes, these sites will be helpful. Federalist Papers American Studies at the University of Virginia The Avalon Project at Yale Law School The Law Center at the University of Oklahoma Anti-Federalist Papers Document Library by Teaching American History at least one paragraph to explain why you disagree with the opposing stance. For example, if you have chosen to argue as a Federalist, you will explain why you disagree with the Anti-Federalist position, using quotes from the documents to support your argument. strong concluding paragraph that summarizes your argument and encourage others to support you Your argument should be......

Words: 382 - Pages: 2

Anti Federalist vs. Federalist

...Both Federalists and Anti-Federalist was both established from Washington’s cabinet. Jefferson who was an anti-federalist, was the secretary of state and hamilton, who was a federalist, was the secretary of the treasury. both parties thought presidents should be voted in by the public, (white males to specific). they based their ideas from the Enlightenment. Overall, they both wanted to keep the liberties of the people protected and wanted representative government. it is important to understand the two opposing view because the two groups untimely forged our nation, and they also created the basic of today two party political system. Opposing Views Federalists Anti-Federalist they were the supporters of a larger national government. they were a group of people that opposed the ratification of the proposed constitution in 1787. Federalists felt like the Bill of Rights addition was not necessary, because they believe that the constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. propose and supported the Bill of Rights addition because they claimed the constitution gave the central government too much power, and without the bill of rights the people would be at risk of oppression. felt that the states were free agents that should manage their own revenue and spend their money as they say fit. felt that many individual and different fiscal and monetary policies led to economic struggles and national weakness. favored dividing the power among different......

Words: 380 - Pages: 2