More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalists vs anti federalists and the constitution
Essays on federalist versus anti federalist
Essays on federalist versus anti federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Federalists vs anti federalists and the constitution
The measure of strength granted to the central government is at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. It is also at the heart of much political debate and discord throughout U.S. history, notably the American Civil War. Anti-Federalists, who supported strong state governments, were backed primarily by agrarians, westerners, and southerners. Many held the belief that popular self-government flourished in small communities where ruled and ruler interacted daily (Van Zant, slide 12). Federalists, who favored a strong central government, were supported primarily by upper class northern and mid-Atlantic businessmen and professionals. They envisioned an America ruled by an informal aristocracy of elite, propertied gentlemen who would control the politics
·Despite the Federalists’ effort to associate themselves with the Constitution they actually favored a “consolidated” (Centralized) national government instead of a truly federal system with substantial powers left to the states
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
There were men like Herman Husband who despised wealth, gluttony, extravagance, and luxury, and as such, he made sure that he educated as many “ordinary people” as he could, as often as he could, about the dangers of the ordinary people giving up their power. On the other side of the token, there were the framers who would achieve an added benefit from having a centralized government, which may be why they advocated so heavily in favor of a federal government. Some of the Founding Fathers owned paper securities that were depreciating themselves almost to nothing due to the war and America 's inability to repay her debts. By creating and enforcing a centralized government who would pay off debts, their paper securities would be back on the rise and of course increase their wealth at the expense of others (Countryman 169). Although the Anti-Federalists were able to obtain almost all of what they asked for between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the most important thing – a small local government – was now forgone in favor of the federal
The Federalists claim that the powers of the central government should be interminable. Publius states that the “means ought to be proportioned to the end,” wherein the government should have all the powers necessary to accomplish what it is charged to do (Feds. 1490). The people delegate power to the
The Anti-Federalist Papers documented the political background in which the Constitution was born. The Anti-Federalist saw threats to rights and authorizations in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. A central government is the political authority that governs the entire nation. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. The Anti-Federalist proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. Anti-federalists continued to view a large and powerful central government as leading to autocracy, appealed to the actions of the British king and Parliament to demonstrate their point. Anti-Federalists
The Anti-Federalists had many views that were different than those of the Federalists. One the differences that seems to be important, is who they view as “The people”. The Anti-Federalists believed that common people should be able to be active participants of their government; this involvement includes having a say in the laws that are made and the protection of everyday working class people. This common man involvement is reinforced by the fact that the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep government more local, by having strong state governments. Using Rogers Smith’s Civic Ideals as a foundation, this essay illustrates that the view of the Anti-Federalists is that the United States of America is combined of many different people, and that representation should be based on these differences rather than just the elite population.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
America's republican form of representative government was premised upon the idea of three co-equal branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The three branches, in theory, operate independent of one another and serve as check upon one another. It is this structure of this government, the founders believed, that would retard any establishment of monarchial government that the American Revolution was fought upon. However the civil war, and more specifically the Reconstruction period following it tested these principles to the core. While it may be accurate to characterize governmental struggles that defined Reconstruction as ones that were inter-branch, a more detailed and nuanced survey reveals it was borne more so out of ideologies that were incumbent within each branch. This essay surveys the ideological battles between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, and evaluates its impact on the idea of American Federalism from the past going forward.
The Constitution that was created had a strong central government and weaker state governments. Under the Constitution, Congress was given the power to levy taxes, regulate trade between the states, raise an army, control interstate commerce, and more. A three-branch government was established in which a judicial branch handled disputes in a federal court system, a President headed an executive branch, and a legislative branch. Conversely, the anti-federalists believed in weak central and strong state governments, as the way it was in The Articles of Confederation and believed in strict adherence to the writings of the constitution.
People have their own perspective of a government that they envision for their people. Thomas Jefferson has been the president of the United States and ruled under a monarch. Jefferson couldn’t tolerate the abuse from a monarch, so he rebelled against the British crown. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence, and declared the colonies were free from British rule. Before he became the author of The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was established “ as an ardent republican and revolutionary” (Jacobus 77). Jacobus states Jefferson is, “one of the most versatile Americans of any generation” (Jacobus 78). In The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson and the founding fathers envisioned a government that would govern the people, and the people would be free. The people must be governed with rights, Jefferson implies it’s the government’s duty to guide and secure the people, therefore, he believes the government’s obligation to the individual is more important than the individuals obligation to the state.
1. In your opinion, which ancient political practice, protective or developmental republicanism, has had the greatest impact on our liberal democratic practice?
John Adams stated that “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” Federalists believed this, and fought verbal and written battles against the Anti-Federalists, who disagreed with John Adams. Anti-Federalists believed that in an elite democracy, the elite’s would get greedy and selfish, and only worry about themselves. As I’m on the Federalist side, I believe that John Adams was correct in his statement, and that the government is only trying to uphold the rights and liberties that each citizen ought to have.
Even before the Constitution was ratified, strong argument were made by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers urging the inclusion of a federal form of government to replace the failed confederation. In Federalist Paper No. 9 Hamilton states, “This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is s kind of assemblage of societies that constitutes a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, until they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of a united body” (Usinfo.state.gov). The people of the United States needed a central government that was capable of holding certain powers over the states.