Free Essay

2.03 Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists


Submitted By moojjse
Words 615
Pages 3
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 that the government would be kept under control of power, as stated 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 members of the others… but great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists of in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of others.”
According to Anti- Federalists, having a strong central government would take away the freedom and rights of the people. They were against ending slavery and did not believe it was necessary to have a central army nor bank. Having a monarch was a necessity for the Anti- Federalists because they didn’t not want citizens to have a say in government. An Anti- Federalist paper, ‘Brutus I’, states: “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.” This demonstrates how they did not want a strong central government. The paper also states: “It might be here shown, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.” This explains the belief that ‘destruction of liberty’ will be brought by a militia.
After learning about both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists views, we can see that it is better that the Anti- Federalists did not succeed in getting their way. Their way of governing would have led our country to corruption. The Federalists undoubtedly had more reasonable points, such as the fact they were for the betterment of the people. If someone wanted to live in a place where the government favored their rights and honored their abilities, they should side with the Federalists.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay


...RETHINKING THE EAST ASIAN MIRACLE JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ AND SHAHID YUSUF Editors RETHINKING THE EAST ASIA MIRACLE JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ AND SHAHID YUSUF Editors A copublication of the World Bank and Oxford University Press i Oxford University Press Oxford • New York • Athens • Auckland • Bangkok • Bogotá • Buenos Aires • Calcutta • Cape Town • Chennai • Dar es Salaam • Delhi • Florence • Hong Kong • Istanbul • Karachi • Kuala Lumpur • Madrid • Melbourne • Mexico City • Mumbai • Nairobi • Paris • São Paulo • Singapore • Taipei • Tokyo • Toronto • Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin • Ibadan © 2001 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, USA Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Cover design and interior design by Naylor Design, Washington, D.C. Manufactured in the United States of America First printing June 2001 1 2 3 4 04 03 02 01 The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this study are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations...

Words: 190305 - Pages: 762