Premium Essay



Submitted By mandie50
Words 836
Pages 4
By: Normandie Lovince

I am a supporter of the anti-federalist party. The anti-federalist took some of the ideas that the federalist had into consideration. Instead of abolishing or ignoring these ideas, they wanted to improve them. The anti-federalist and the federalist share two very opposing views. As you read this essay, you will gradually start to see just how my ideas are being supported as to why I've chosen to become an anti-federalist.

The anti-federalist party was the first out of two political parties of the U.S. This party was led by Henry, George Mason and Samuel Adams alongside Richard Henry Lee who wanted the president and the senate to have the entire executive and 2/3 of the legislative power. As an anti-federalist, I believe that the constitution should not be ratified. I feel like the best way, that the U.S citizens should be protected is by being kept safe from the Government and the bill of rights will do that because of the freedom and liberty that it gives us. "The greatest importance for Freemen to retain themselves are the liberties given to us in the bill of rights", which is why it's so important that we'd add it to the constitution. In order to get the bill of rights to be in the constitution we'd need to sacrifice part of our natural rights, for the good of others around us.

The anti-federalist believed that the constitution should have a bill of rights. The Anti-federalist opposed the constitution, while the federalist themselves favored it. The federalist's constitution was a bill of rights itself with reserved powers for the states. The anti-federalist had believed that the government shouldn't receive too much power, that's why it wanted to give most to the states. The federalist wanted a strong national government while the anti-federalist wanted a weaker national government, and a stronger state Government. The

Similar Documents

Free Essay


...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 explained...

Words: 875 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Federalist V Anti somewhere safe and economically secure. And when it comes to who should be the one in charge of making big changes or passing law, it should be someone that really knows about politics and the economy, someone that will not be biased. And that would be federalist; they are true politicians, people who truly have the knowledge to direct Florida and all the other states to a better place with a strong central government in charge. I see it like this you don’t want a garbage man that has no knowledge as your doctor, you want someone that has knowledge in that field, it’s the same with politics. John Adam stated that “government is instituted for the common good; for the perfection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of man….” Federalist were business men, and wanted a central government because of equality they wanted the states to all have the same right not one be more powerful because of their size or any other quality. By Adams saying this he also was saying that sometimes people want to lead to have an advantage and for their own good, but by having a central government that wouldn’t happen. Anti-federalist believed that anyone could be a representative but if you really think about it that incorrect because people that really don’t know about politics could say something is right but only see it in the point of view that it would help them and not really analyze...

Words: 394 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Federalist And Anti-Federalists Similarities

...and differences between Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist controversy. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist controversy explores the views of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the Constitution, and they wanted the Constitution to become law or ratified. Moreover, the Federalists wanted and believed in a strong, central government. The Federalists consisted of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. On the other side, there were opponents of the Constitution (the Anti-Federalists). The Anti-Federalists thought the Constitution would give the government too much power and control; there was no Bill of Rights to protect the people and their rights from...

Words: 1199 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Anti Federalists Versus Federalists

...Pros-Federalists ♥ Supporters of the Constitution that were led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. They firmly believed the national government should be strong. They didn't want the Bill of Rights because they felt citizens' rights were already well protected by the Constitution. ♥ Felt that there should be three independent branches each representing a different aspect of the people, and because they are equal one cannot overpower the other. ♥ The more organized party. ♥ The party that wanted the constitution to be ratified and it was! ♥ Federalist vision of the country supported the belief that a National Government based on the Articles of the Confederation was inadequate to support an ever growing and expanding nation. ♥ Federalists were made up of the wealthy and elite plantation owners and businessmen. ♥ The Federalists believed the articles of confederation which were the first attempt to unite the country into a continental nation had failed ♥ Cons-Anti Federalists ♥ Thought Congress held too much power. ♥ Did not like it that there was no bill of rights. ♥ Opponents of a strong central government who campaigned against the ratification of the Constitution in favor of a confederation of independent states ♥ Believe Executive Branch held too much power. ♥ Did not want the constitution Ratified ♥ Did not get their way. ♥ Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution and formation of a National Government would lead to a monarchy...

Words: 324 - Pages: 2

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 several...

Words: 667 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

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, proper...

Words: 458 - Pages: 2

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 that...

Words: 615 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

02.03 the Anti-Federalists: Assessment

...02.03 The Anti-Federalists: Assessment When I say Anti, you say Federalist, Anti-Federalist! Anti-Federalist!! The debate between federalists and anti-federalists was very intense during the time the constitution was ratified. The reason why I consider myself a member of the Anti-federalist party is due to the fact that I agree with their main purpose, which was States ’ Right. I believe the rights and powers should be held by individual rather than by the Federal government. How would our country be like without these rights in the first place? Chaotic Right?! Federalists believed in a stronger centralized government, was led by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Two quotes from the Federalist papers would be. “We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.” And “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Also the Federalist Party supported the Virginia plan Anti-Federalists believed in strong states’ rights wanted a weak federal government that would not threaten states’ rights was led by Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. Although the name does not mean that they were federalism, they were against a strong central government. "It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country...

Words: 473 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

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 branches...

Words: 380 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Compare And Contrast The Federalist And The Anti-Federalists

...As they were trying to put together the Constitution, America divided into two sections, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were those who supported the Constitution and those who opposed the Constitution were known as the Anti-Federalists. Even though the Anti-Federalist could not prevent ratification as the Federalist triumphed, they were able to amend the Constitution which included the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalist believed a national government threatened liberties, rights and gave the federal government too much power; therefore, they felt each state should have the right to decide its own laws. In addition, they felt America was too large for the government to understand the concerns of each state and its...

Words: 362 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

The Conflict Between Federalists and Anti-Federalists

...The Conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists The Conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists While the anti-Federalists believed the Constitution and formation of a National Government would lead to a monarchy or aristocracy, the Federalists vision of the country supported the belief that a National Government based on the Articles of the Confederation was inadequate to support an ever growing and expanding nation. After the constitution was signed the next step was ratification by a least nine states. Ratification by the states was by no means a fore gone conclusion in 1887. Any state not ratifying the constitution would be considered a separate country. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very different opinions on what kind of government should be formed. The Anti-Federalists were made up mostly of farmers and tradesman, common people working to support their families. The Federalists were made up of the wealthy and elite plantation owners and businessmen. In an effort to make their argument the Anti-Federalists used rhetoric from the Revolutionary War to stress the merits of state and local government. The Anti-federalists also characterized a national or central government as a step away from democratic goals, fought for during the Revolutionary War and a step towards monarchy or aristocracy rule (Net Industries, 2009). Anti-Federalists believed individual state rights should be protect and if the constitution was ratified states would lose...

Words: 1128 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Difference Between Federalist And Anti-Federalists

...Introduction In us history the antifederalist were those who oppose with the constitution in 1788 and the federalist were those who want the constitution because they want to give freedom to the people. The debate happen because the federalist wanted the constitution but the antifederalist didn’t want. For make this happen both need to convince New York. The both teams started to send letters to New York trying to convince it. Federalists and Anti-Federalists were the staunchest opposition politicians during the drafting of the United States Constitution. They argued and disagreed on the legacy of the American Revolution nor in how exactly should the US government be established. The two groups discussed the merits of the Constitution for three years, between 1787 and 1790, during which time the colonies debated ratification. The Federalists finally got their Constitution was ratified by 13 states, while Rhode Island became the last state to ratify the May 29, 1790....

Words: 376 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti-Federalists

...The Federalist and Anti-Federalist controversy can be very nerve racking, especially when picking a side. Both sides offer their fair laws but they still struggle to have a fair amount of laws. Federalist and Anti-federalist have been head to head as if trying to win a race about who is better but in the end it’s all up to Americans and what we decide. Personally, I have decided to stick to Federalist based on the laws they offer. On the Federalist side the government is has greater power than under the Articles of Confederation. Although the power is limited it still benefits greatly to Americans instead of the Anti-Federalist power which would have to tax citizens. One great benefit from the Federalist’s is the power allowing states to...

Words: 307 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Compare And Contrast The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

...The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two different groups that worked on the Articles of Confederation, and together created what is now our Constitution. This wasn’t an easy task to accomplish, there were many debates in order to create this document. To create the Constitution, 55 delegates met together at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to discuss how to adjust the Articles of Confederation to the new, developing country. Due to the “weaknesses” that presented itself within the Articles of Confederation, many delegates were split into two groups; one was the Federalists, which consisted of prominent businessmen, the second group was the Anti-Federalists, which consisted mostly of farmers and workers. The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were: 1. Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of the size of the state 2....

Words: 849 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Compare And Contrast The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

...What is the most efficient use of power? A strong central government, where little to no power goes to the people, or one where all the power goes to the people and very little power goes to the government? For most people the first option is their own personal nightmares whereas the latter is their ideal. The Federalists want to have a system of power where most power goes to the government and is favorable by the wealthy, well-educated men. The Anti-Federalists are in favor of a system of power where most power goes to the people. This option is favored by farmers. The Antifederalists appeals to the ordinary man, whereas the Federalists appeals to the 1% of the population that own land. The thought process of the Antifederalists appeal more to the common colonist. First, the Antifederalists want to not ratify the Constitution, but rather dd a Bill Of Rights. Led by the greatest colonist minds of Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Samuel Adams, and James Winthrop, son of John Winthrop (Antifederalists). The anti-federalists want a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people and oppose the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are a list of rights that they believe should be accessible to everyone, however rich or poor they were....

Words: 561 - Pages: 3