...George Washington. The Anti-Federalist wanted power in the states and didn't want a powerful central government. The key anti-federalist were John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Mercy Otis Warren. The federalist favored the Constitution because it gave Congress the power to govern domestic affairs. Not only that but they were given the power to tax due to the Constitution. They did not trust the people to solve the major problems the nation had so they wanted a strong central government to counter that. The Constitution implemented a check and balance system so that one branch isn't too powerful...
Words: 674 - Pages: 3
...protection for individual freedoms. They wrote their own essays such as the “Centinel” against the federalist papers and it was to warn about the danger from tyranny. Samuel Bryan, the author of the letters of centinel, wrote: ‘Without presuming upon my own judgment, I cannot think in an unwarrantable presumption to offer my private opinion, and call upon others for their’s…” The Centinel purpose was to include a bill of rights in the new constitution and to adopt those rights. The Antifederalist achieve their goal and the federalists compromise with the bill of rights added to the Constitution. Many people say that the first amendment would not be here without the “intent of the Framers.”. But they did not adopt the first amendment. The Anti-federalist was still scared because the constitution did not really guarantee that the government could take people’s right to worship away. For example, the first amendment does not say that freedoms of speech or press shall not curtail, it only prevents...
Words: 651 - Pages: 3
...The Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued whether or not to adopt the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists were in favor of it, while the Anti-Federalists were in opposition of the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists were fundamental to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution because they pointed out the problems in the Articles of Confederation and created a strong government with the U.S. Constitution. While the Anti-Federalists believed that the U.S. Constitution was too powerful. The Federalists were fundamental to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution because they pointed out the problems in the Articles of Confederation. “Government under the Articles of Confederation could not enforce a treaty or a law when made nor impose any taxes for any purpose” (Alchin). The Articles of Confederation didn’t allow the government to enforce laws and treaties or have the power to tax. This was a problem because there was no executive branch to enforce the laws and treaties, so the states didn’t have to follow any rules and could do anything they...
Words: 744 - Pages: 3
...“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”(Madison, 1787) The Federalists, writing under the pseudonym Publius, advocated a strong central government in the new nation. They argued against the Anti-Federalist writers like Brutus, whose ideas of an effective government resided with stronger state governments. Both views of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists were justified in unifying the newly emancipated American colonies. While there is much debate on who theoretically won the political battle that resulted in the ratification of the constitution in 1789, it is clear that the modern American government no longer represents James Madison ideals of a balanced federal...
Words: 1502 - Pages: 7
...Extra Extra, read all about it! The Anti - Federalist and Federalist have decided to explain their differences and this newspaper has been lucky enough to get the scoop. Though the Anti - Federalist is the side where we stand we will explain the views of both. Now let's explore each side! The Anti - Federalist believe in the power for the States. Local control is the key to the concept of democracy. “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety.” Believing that the Bill of Rights are essential for our own individual liberties to be expressed. “If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable—a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.” The stance on power to the States is the fuel that kept the machine of the Anti - Federalist going. On the other hand, the Federalist were opposed to everything above. With their believes in a strong national government and over all control. The favored central banking and central financial policies. “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...
Words: 417 - Pages: 2
...Kara Botts Professor Claudio History 1301 10/20/2012 Federalism is defined as a political concept that is based on a group of members bounded together by an agreement made with the head of governing representative. The term federalism also describes a system of government which has the sovereignty constitutionally divided between the constituent political units including provinces and states and a central governing authority. The system of federalism is based on the democratic institutions and rules which shares the authority of governing among state/provincial and national governments, and establishing system that is termed as a federation. The proponents of federation are often called federalists (Turner, 2004.pp.105-153). The term anti-federalism defines a movement that is against the establishment of a powerful U.S. federal government and which further went against the approval of the Constitution of 1787. More authority was offered to the state governments in last constitution which is named as the Articles of Confederation. That constitution was led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, it made Anti-Federalists concerned about the position of president and about a novelty that has the possibility to change into a monarchy (Siemers, 2004.pp.213-245). The establishment of the Constitution involved detailed discussions and cooperation, and it was observed at its completion that there were still some delegates who did not seem to be satisfied with it. The main task of...
Words: 929 - Pages: 4
...would render both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist’s arguments invalid. Not only that, but it takes care of the problem of separation of powers as well. While eventually a switch to some kind of republic may be necessary, as our population becomes too large for everyone to have their voice be heard, but right now for our new country, a large democracy is exactly what will suit us best. The Anti-Federalists argue that the states should have equaled if not more power than the federal government. People like Thomas Jefferson argued against what they feared would be the creation of the government that they tried to break away from. They wanted to defend against a strong central government that would be just like the king they revolted against. The Federalists on the other hand rallied for a stronger government. They wanted the central government to have enough power to act and react to issues that may arise in the nation. They didn’t want the states to have all the power, because it would leave the nation divided and vulnerable. They wanted a unified nation that could compete on a world scale. With a large democracy both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists would be appeased. Everyone has a direct voice in the government and the decisions that are being made. With a direct democracy all the decisions being made are coming from the public opinion. This protects us from a leader figure making all the decisions like the Anti-Federalists feared. A large democracy...
Words: 494 - Pages: 2
...Federalism supports a strong government and actually benefits our country by changing the government. While the anti-federalists claim to want to improve the government, but instead puts powers into the hands of the states. A centralized government that “is a system of democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation.” Even giving the constitution a certain amount of power, it created a method of checks and balances to prevent dictatorship. Anti-federalists wanted to the states to have more power than the centralized government. The anti-federalist view what would’ve led this country into pure corruption. The federalist, however, covered this view by thinking about it’s people by adding their opinions and covering the worries. This country needs a system of rules to live upon or else the people of this country wouldn’t know what’s hurting or benefiting it from destruction. The federalists favored limited state power. Local control was key to anti-federalist concept of democracy. Which would heat up state’s right fights in the 1800’s. For example, the anti-federalists were favored in the New Jersey Plan rather than the federalists choosing the Virginia Plan giving more power to the states like they favored. Yes, the anti-federalists believe that we should be working together as a whole. Not state by state, it is “We the People” not “We the Divided”. ...
Words: 293 - Pages: 2
...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
...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
...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
...I would be an Anti-Federalist, due to the fact that they didn't despise federalism, they just wanted to make improvements. They worked to put more power into the states hands. Just as Anti-Federalist believe, I agree with the constitution but the bill of rights that was later added on was essential. The bill of rights is a huge essence in our personal rights that we have day in and day out. I don't know what our country would be like without these rights in place. Federalists were people who believed that the constitution was perfect as it was. They also pushed to get it ratified immediately. Federalists were also in support of a strong centralized government. "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." During this time on conflict, two plans were brought into the picture to resolve the issue. The Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. Federalists from large states were in favor of the Virginia Plan, because it would give power to the larger states. “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...
Words: 501 - Pages: 3
...The challenge our founders faced was bringing in the bill of rights and allowing all the states to accept them. This was a problem because there were different groups who were against it, the people who were for it were the Anti – Federalist those against it were the federalist. The anti-federalist wanted the bill of rights because it will give the federal government more power and they will have their own states power by doing this not only does the states have power the people will have the right and the will to speak their minds and talk about how they feel about their government. This will lead to a change in the United States which will later gave them freedom. There was conflict the anti-federalist felt that if the federal government...
Words: 337 - Pages: 2
...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 cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of a number of small...
Words: 299 - Pages: 2
...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 explained...
Words: 875 - Pages: 4
