Free Essay

Anti Federalist vs. Federalist

In: Historical Events

Submitted By Molizad
Words 380
Pages 2
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
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 branches of government. wanted the legislative branch to have more power than the executive. proposed a single person to lead the executive branch. fear that a strong executive might become a king or tyrant.
If I had the choose, I would had supported the Anti-Federalist. I honestly see no reasonable justification for a federal government's existence at all. Anything that can be done at the federal level can be done cheaper, more efficiently, and with a higher regard for individual liberty than at the state and local levels. As we've seen over the last several decades, especially with issues like the Drug War and civil liberties, the federal government seems all too happy to encroach into the legislative domain of the states; and truthfully, I don't think the best national Constitution, even if followed, could alleviate this steady march toward monolithic government.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

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

Free Essay


...News Paper article: Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist In a monarchy, the people have no say in the government, and if anti-federalist we would be living in a monarchy. This would cause chaos and hostility amongst the citizens of the nation, and sway the congress of the United States to continue in its federalist ideals and views. The feud between federalist and anti-federalist prolonged for quite awhile. It’s good that we really went over the views of both sides before deciding which one would be incorporated in to running this country. The federalist, in many peoples opinion was more for the people. Federalist wanted to do business with England. The federalist wanted a strong central government. They wanted a central bank and a federal army. Federalist also was strongly against slavery and wanted to terminate it. “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 the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in......

Words: 689 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

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

Premium Essay


...* Ratifying the Constitution: Anti-Federalists vs. Federalists If you were asked to pick a side, would you stand as a Federalist or Anti-Federalists? (why) If asked to pick a side, Anti-Federalists or Federalists I would be a federalist. Federalists believed the Constitution was necessary in order to protect the liberty and independence that was gained from the Revolutionary War. The Federalists were filled with mostly, well educated people. While being more organized in their efforts, people were often influenced by their beliefs. Americans had just been created and were being introduced to freedom of speech. Tyranny wasn’t an option in the states. No one would stand for it again. In order for that to happen, we would need the Constitution. During the time after the Declaration of Independence, America was still in the process of creation. Government wasn’t perfected quite yet. Problems were still be faced due to the Articles of Confederation. The problems that came along with it were • Unanimous approval for voting from all 13 states • They cannot regulate trade • No power to tax • No executive branch • No army or military Hopefully, the Constitution could change things. We would have three branches of government. The judicial, legislative, and executive branch. Each branch had equal ruling, or power. Laws each branch wanted to pass would have to be passed along to other branches,......

Words: 432 - Pages: 2

Free Essay


...document restricting neutral trade to the U.S. docs Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists (1780). Stronger central government, state representation from states each 2 representatives, no Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation useless, because states had more power, wanted larger public, and they believed in large farming and industrialization,.. antif federalist, wanted state rights, wanted add the House of Represeantives, Bill of Rights, they thought the aritcles needed to be ratified not taken away completely, smaller public, believed Americas future is small farming Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans (1790s) – Hamiltonians (known as federalist party) vs. the Jeffersonians (Democratic Party) Differences between Federalist stances (1780s) vs. Federalist Party stances (1790s)- Federalist of 1780-Stronger central government, state representation from states each 2 representatives, no Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation useless, because states had more power, wanted larger public, and they believed in large farming and industrialization.. Federalist Party Stances of (1790)- Led by Alexander Hamilton strong central government led by the wealthy and industry, emphasis on manufacturing ,trading, and shipping.. loose interpretation of the Constitution, favored the National bank, and favored Tariffs, they were pro-British. Differences between Anti-Federalists (1780s) vs. Jeffersonians (1790s) - ,.. anti federalist, wanted state rights, wanted add the House of......

Words: 2158 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay


...Anti-Federalists vs. the Federalists - what did we gain from their discourse?  Federalists are people who wanted their national government become stronger. They supported the ratification of the Constitution to help conduct the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. They felt that many individual and monetary policies make economic struggles and national weakness. They prefer to have central banking central financial policies. Contract to Federalists, anti- Federalists who oppose the development of a strong federal government and the Constitution ratified in 1788 wanted to remain in the hands of the state and local levels. They felt that states were free agents that should manage their income and spend their money as they saw fitly. Although less well organized than the federal, they also have an impressive group of leaders who are particularly prominent in state politics. Was the Constitution in danger of NOT being ratified?  Yes, the constitution was in danger of not being ratified. The strongest objections raised by the Antifederalists, however, the main problem is the lack of protection for individual liberties in the Constitution. The debate raged for months. Nine states had ratified the Constitution, ensuring it will be in effect for the nine states. However, the main countries including the Virginia and New York were not approved. Its was very difficult in ratifying Constitution. What might our country have been like without the Ant-Federalist...

Words: 277 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Six Degrees of Separation the theme because with this subject, they feared giving the government so much power that they didn't give it enough to help the country function properly. RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION (FEDS VS. ANTI-FEDS): Due to how weak and ineffective the Articles of Confederation were, delegates met up and decided to recreate it, forming the Constitution. Fierce debates over the ratification of the Constitution between the supporters, known as the Federalists, and those who opposed, known as Anti-Federalists, lasted almost a year. Federalists argued that a strong central government would make the efforts of the Revolution useless, restrict states' rights, and it didn't offer protection of individual rights. The Federalists eventually backed off and included a Bill of Rights, allowing the Constitution to be ratified. American and National Identity is the theme because it's about how the two opposing groups had different views on what the Constitution should contain, therefore resulting in different interpretations of it, and how that led to debates about what should be included in it. KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS: Due to the ratification of the Constitution, interpretations were different between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Because of this, when the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, many Democratic-Republicans were outraged and argued that it was unconstitutional. Both Thomas Jefferson of Virginia and James Madison of Kentucky adopted......

Words: 376 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

The Dueling Banjos State vs. Federal

...The Dueling Banjos (State vs. Federal) The United States Judicial System Dee Montano CJA/204 April 3, 2012 Sherre D. Corniel The Dueling Banjos (State vs. Federal) The United States Judicial System Frustration, confusion, and complexity; these three words can and are used regularly to describe the justice system within the United States. A better understanding of the history, principles, and role of the dual court system is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the American justice system. FEDERALISM vs. ANTI-FEDERALISM The roots of the modern court system in the United States can be found in the principle of federalism. When the delegates met in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention among other issues that needed to be addressed was a national judicial system; the Articles of Confederation was woefully inadequate in providing for this. The dual judicial system that exists today was given life with the passage of Article III of the U.S. Constitution ("[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.") Article III was a compromise between the Federalists, supporters of a strong central government, who thought that the federal judiciary should contain all of the courts (trial, appellate, and supreme). Whereas the Anti-Federalists, proponents of states’ rights, believed that an all-inclusive federal judiciary would......

Words: 1654 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

The Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution

...The Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution DeVry University The Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution are the historical documents that have been the building blocks of democracy that America is known for today. The Articles of Confederation are in many way an extension of what makes up the United States Constitution. In 1777, there wear a combination of thirteen states that came together to mold a type of government document that the United States could determine as “central” style of government. These states included New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. By late 1787, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by a more complete United States Constitution. There are several differences and similarities that lead to this American government transformation. The origination of the Articles of Confederation were a dynamic that was set into place in order to safeguard the union of states from any foreign control. It was a time in which the newly born states were yearning to be a set of sovereign states but stay independent from British colony control. Thus, the Articles of Confederation were originated. There were several important aspects of the Articles of Confederation that helped the United States reach a somewhat government goal. In the articles, states were allowed to collect taxes from its......

Words: 1524 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Hamilton vs Adams

...Chanice Lighty November 3rd, 2014 Harrold US History John Adams vs Alexander Hamilton Born October 30, 1735 in Quincy, Massachusetts. John Adams our 2nd president of the United States, grew up with a father who was a farmer, deacon, and town councilman. Adams was a federalist one of his famous attributes was the argument about the stamp act of 1765. He wrote a response to the act called “Essay on the Canon and Feudal Law” in which he argued that: ‘the stamp act deprived American colonist of their rights to be taxed by consent and to be tried by a jury of their peers.’ He also made it clear that the act was null and void in a speech he sent out to the governor of Massachusetts along with his council. In 1796, Adams was elected as the federalist nominee for president. Thomas Jefferson led opposition. During his presidency France and Britain began a war, which started a political uproar for the United States causing Adams administration to focus on diplomatic efforts for France, when France denied the United States and later after the war died down Adams lost his favoritism from the public and lost his re-election to once opposed Thomas Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton born January 11, 1755 on the island of Nevis in the British West indies. Hamilton was part of George Washington’s administration, and one of the leading figures. Hamilton was also a nationalist, who stood for the “wealthy elite” meaning he believed the government should protect the wealthy. Hamilton’s......

Words: 883 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Effects of American Revolution

...France and many other countries. It would also be the foundation of our alliance with our greatest ally (Great Britain) in centuries to come. The American revolution was not just a war. It was the war that gave our country independence. The actions of our Founding Fathers set a precedent for almost all future leaders. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Most people think that the U.S. constitution was just ratified and there was no arguments over its passing. In fact there was almost enough opposition that it came very close to not being passed. It was the Hamiltonians vs. the Jeffersonians in almost all cases. Even before the United States Constitution was ratified there was debate over whether or not to have a strict interpretation or a loose one. There was also debate over a State’s right to nullify a law. As memories of Shay’s rebellion and the reality of the Whiskey rebellion came to the front the issue of undue force became an issue. One of the other major issues during this era was the debt and the national bank. Although the constitution was passed there was much debate over whether it should be a strict or loose interpretation. Hamilton’s federalists thought it should be loose and Jefferson’s democratic-republicans strict. If it was strict then the federal government would only have the powers specifically given to it because of the tenth amendment....

Words: 419 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

The Radicalism of the American Revolution

...essence of American Democracy” (Wood 243). This inclusion of ordinary people in government violated the disinterestedness concept of Republicanism and introduced the concept of “self-interest”. Americans began to feel disconnected from one another and “so self-conscious of their distinct interests that they could not trust anyone different or far removed from themselves to speak for them in government” (Wood 245).”American localist democracy grew out of this mistrust” (Wood 245). The desire to consume products, obtain wealth, conduct commerce, and serve the self-interests of the local ordinary people made the Founding Fathers concept of disinterested rulers unworkable. “In the generation following the formation of the constitution, the Anti-Federalist conception of actual or interest representation in government came to dominate political life” (Wood 294). “Elected officials were to bring the partial, local interests of the society, and sometimes their own interests, right into the workings of government. Partisanship and parties became legitimate activities in politics” (Wood 294). “All people were the same: all were ordinary and all were best represented by ordinary people. That was Democracy” (Wood 295). My Analysis of the Book Gordon Wood won the Pulitzer Prize for History for this thought provoking work. Pauline Maier of “The New York Times Book Review” wrote “This is the most important study of the Revolution to appear in over 20 years.” I liked the book but at......

Words: 2135 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

How America Became a World Power

...Dred Scott vs. Sandford – racial Plessy v. Ferguson – racial Brown v. Board of Education – racial Roe v. Wade – abortion (cultural landmark) Article IV – ties together the states 1st clause Full faith and credit -between the states 2nd clause Privileges and immunities Same in every state 3rd clause Extradition from one state to the criminal’s home state Article V – amendment process 2/3 House vote and 2/3 Senate vote can amend the Constitution Also requires ¾ ratification vote of all state legislatures (or conventions) – federalism! “Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousands eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses…” Reference to the agreed 1808 termination of the slave trade Slavery is a lurking theme (Example of an amendment) 1972 equal rights amendment Proposed constitutional amendment designed to give equal rights to all, regardless of sex Made it through both houses and 34 states – but then it died Couldn’t quite get the required ¾ (Amendment is the only way to reverse a Supreme Court decision) A state must consent if it is to be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate Article VI – Supremacy Clause Constitution=supreme Law of the Land Judges are bound by the Constitution Overrides state laws (Limits state powers) Article VII Nine states have to agree on the establishment of this Constitution Going to be difficult…! Anti-Federalists vs. Federalists States’......

Words: 1054 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Political Science

...States are left largely on their own (13 separate states, no unity) D) Shay’s Rebellion 4 Key debates 1. Representation of the states (large population vs. small population) o States might be equal but not for individuals o Creates a Bicameral Legislation (2 houses) 1. Senate 2. House of reps (representation based on population) which is known as “the great compromise” o Defensive compromise; better at not getting stuff done than getting stuff done. 2. Slavery (north vs. south) • In the constitution, Slavery is OK • Importation of slaves is allowed for at least 20 years (1808) • Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for state population – representation bonus for the south • Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for state population – for taxes • Return of escaped slaves *South wins on the issue of slavery 3. Chief Executive (single vs. multiple) • Federalists argued for the single presidency • Anti-federalists argued for the multiple. 4. Bill of Rights • New York becomes the key battle ground for the ratification of the constitution • Madison, Hamilton, Jay, go to New York and write the Federalist Papers. Signed not with their names “publius” meaning public man; they wanted everyone to read them no matter what side you were on (pro or against) or without bias IV) Constitution A. James Madison • Federalist paper number 10 • Faction solution? - Big extended Republic • Why a “republic?” o Representatives as a buffer and a filter o Additional layer of......

Words: 1863 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Midterm class) 5. Briefly discuss the government under the Articles of Confederation. What powers were reserved for Congress and what powers were reserved for the states? 6. Why did the Newburgh Conspiracy and Shay’s Rebellion illustrate the need for a new government? Because it islustrated the fact that the government was not supported by both the military and the people. 7. Briefly discuss the six major debates at the Constitutional Convention (discuss, don’t just list them). Make sure to address the centrality of slave controversy at the convention. Why is the constitution such an extraordinary document? • Large states vs small states – checks and balances – fear of dictating leader- leads to great compromise • Slavery vs nonslavery - Not everyone was necessarily bothered by it morally, rather it was more of an economical issue. • Frontier vs original – equalizing the rights between the two • Interstate fugitive slaves – found clause to send slaves back to owners – why? • Foreign slave trade • Representation of slaves – battle of the convention, lasts a crazy long time until they come up with 3/5th compromise, because they agree to pay a direct tax on the head of each slave 8. Discuss the work of the 1st Congress (creation of the judiciary, Bill of Rights, etc.) • Developed ways to generate new revenue • Bill of rights ( what prompted this?) - 2nd amendment – right to bear arms and form regulated militia • Pay for president and congress – ended up......

Words: 1073 - Pages: 5