...Confederation. After vigorous debate, the delegates realized the Articles were too weak to support economic prosperity nor provide for public safety. Thus, the delegates underwent a new task: the creation of a brand-new Constitution. A brand new Constitution presented the delegates with a new point of contention. The fifty-five men would have to create a new Constitutions strong enough the support a nation’s economic prosperity, public safety, and so forth without allocating the new government power that did not squint towards a monarchy. Realizing this challenge divided the convention into a plethora of different opinions. These competing opinions could largely be grouped into two factions; the federalist and the anti-federalist. An Overview: Federalist v. Anti-Federalist...
Words: 1285 - Pages: 6
...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
...written document that would empower the thirteen colonies to fight against the greatest army and navy of its time, Great Britain. This document came to be known as The Articles of Confederation and it is the first written Constitution constructed by the United States Continental Congress. The objective of this document was to unify the thirteen states under one central government while retain each individual state right. After the war our founding fathers recognize huge flaws in this document that would eventually destroy the national government if not changed. One of the main flaws was the Articles lack of power to demonstrate authority over the states. Delegates from all over argued for years on if there was a need for a Constitution. Those in favor of a new Constitution, identified themselves as Federalists while those who were in favor of keeping the Articles were identified as Anti-federalists. Because of Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison and Anti- Federalists Patrick...
Words: 942 - Pages: 4
...been established in 1781, however, the debate over the necessity of a Constitution was underway. The Constitutional Convention, beginning in 1781 in Philadelphia included delegates from 12 of the 13 states. During the convention, the delegates discussed issues to be resolved in their proposed Constitution. Public debates outside of the convention also emerged where the common people debated over the Constitution as well. In the late 1780s, following the Constitutional Convention, two groups, the Federalists and Anti-federalists, debated over the necessity and potential dangers of the proposed Constitution....
Words: 1258 - Pages: 6
...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 setting up the concerns of Confederate government had not accomplished yet; it was the responsibility for each state to approve or authorize the Constitution. People were actually divided into two different groups, known as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Both of them had a worth examining perspective based on sound reasoning (Turner, 2004.pp.105-153). It was supposed to be the main...
Words: 929 - Pages: 4
...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
...Persuasive argument Leaders of the Philadelphia Convention had completed the Constitution for the United States of America, but many of the convention members had lingering doubts as to whether the states would approve it. According to the Articles of Confederations, unanimous approval was needed to ratify the Constitution, and convention leaders feared that this was unachievable. The constitution has helped create and mold the United States government into what it is today but it also got help from a few other very important documents. The federalist and the anti-federalist were two completely different groups of people who wanted two completely different things to happen that pertained to the constitution. He anti-federalist were completely against the reification of the constitution which without that would have not transformed our nation as it did. The federalist had the right idea that with the ratification of the constitution it would give just as much power to the government if it wasn’t ratified. “The most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome.” The Federalist Papers are considered by many to be among the founding classics of American political thought, along with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers were part of the national debate over the ratification of the Constitution. Opponents of the Constitution thought the document gave the national government too much power at the expense...
Words: 722 - Pages: 3
...The Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the constitution. The only reason the Anti-Federalists agreed to help ratify the constitution was because of the Bill of Rights and without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been ratified. Ranging from political nobilities like James Winthrop in Massachusetts, to Melancton Smith of New York, and Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia, these Antifederalist were joined by a large number of ordinary Americans particularly commoner farmers who predominated rural America. In spite of the diversity that characterized the Anti-federalist opposition, they did share a solid core view of American politics. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power until its tyranny like rule completely dominated the people. Having just succeeded in rejecting what they saw as the tyranny of British power, certain threats were seen as a very crucial part of political life. The differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists are vast and at times complex. The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the US Constitution, but they never organized efficiently across all thirteen states, and had to fight the ratification at every state convention. Their great success was in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a Bill of Rights, to ensure the liberties the Anti-Federalists...
Words: 1075 - Pages: 5
...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
...“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
...Writing an Outline | An outline is a “blueprint” or “plan” for your paper. It helps you to organize your thoughts and arguments. A good outline can make conducting research and then writing the paper very efficient. Your outline page must include your: * Paper Title * Thesis statement * Major points/arguments indicated by Roman numerals (i.e., I, II, III, IV, V, etc.) * Support for your major points, indicated by capital Arabic numerals (i.e., A, B, C, D, E, etc.) Roman numeral I should be your “Introduction”. In the introduction portion of your paper, you’ll want to tell your reader what your paper is about and then tell what your paper hopes to prove (your thesis). So an Introduction gives an overview of the topic and your thesis statement. The final Roman numeral should be your “Conclusion”. In the conclusion, you summarize what you have told your reader. Following are 3 sample outlines, from actual student papers. YOUR outline can be MORE detailed, or might be LESS detailed. Remember that a good outline makes writing easier and more efficient. Sample Outline #1 Title: Frederick Douglass Thesis: Frederick Douglass played a crucial role in securing the abolition of slavery and equality of African-American rights through his actions, ideas, and efforts as a lecturer, author/publisher, and politician. I. Introduction A. Thesis B. Roles/Arguments II. Douglass as Lecturer A. History as slave and acquisition...
Words: 1185 - Pages: 5
...everyone. This universal fear was a much larger problem in the 1800’s than it is today. Tyranny was a fear that the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and Alexis de Tocqueville had in common. The Federalists feared tyranny of the majority, or faction while the Anti-Federalists feared tyranny of the aristocracy. Tocqueville feared “soft despotism” but supported tyranny of the patriarchy. While the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists were the visionaries for America who tried to prevent different tyrannies, Tocqueville discusses the hypocrisies in America that the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were against. The Federalists strongly believed that the newly founded republic needed a large, centralized government in order to discourage tyranny of the majority. Hamilton voices this opinion when he says “a firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.” (Hamilton, 66, Federalist No. 9) This is because a large, centralized government uses the system of the checks and balances, which prevent domestic faction and revolt. The Federalists made it clear that they opposed a mob ruling and the minorities being denied their rights. The main danger the new republic faced, they argued, was the superior force of an “interested and overbearing majority.” (Madison, 72, No. 10) The Federalists solution on how to deal with majority faction is to “extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties...
Words: 1795 - Pages: 8
...FEDERALIST PAPERS Ramon Chavez P5 Debates were going crazy throughout the United States about whether the new Constitution was an improvement or a disaster that will soon ruin the nation. Federalists were actually people who basically agreed with the Constitution and a strong government. The Federalists were basically way much wealthier and more educated Americans than the anti-federalist well most of them like John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Anti-Federalists were actually people who agreed with a weaker government, but liked a stronger state legislature. Yet not all of them liked the Articles of Confederation, but none of them wanted the new Constitution to be ratified so in a way they wanted to make their own document basically. Poor classes in the West also supported the patriots like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry in which they were actually very good at influencing people, like they were very charismatic.Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger national government would one day destroy the liberties Americans had won in the Revolution. They also worried that the new Constitution didn’t list any specific rights for the people in which that was maybe one of the main reasons why they went against the federalist. Many of the smaller states quickly approved the Constitution because it gave them more way power in the new legislative branch than they had under the Articles of Confederation in...
Words: 832 - Pages: 4
...The differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists are apparent and complex. The Federalist Party most famously included: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Their overall vision was to create a strong, central government. Moreover, they were against the Bill of Rights, favored the Constitution, and supported the urban areas. They felt that a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution would help relieve the tensions following the American Revolution and would help properly manage the debt. Hamilton guaranteed the delegates that the Constitution would create a perfect balance between liberty and power. Anti-Federalists who opposed the ratification insisted that the Constitution would focus more on the latter. The benefits of Federalism include a protection against tyranny, since the power is divided between the national government...
Words: 572 - 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
