More handpicked essays just for you.
The conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists
The struggle over the constitution: Federalists vs Anti-Federalists
The conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The debates that built up over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 revealed bitter controversies on a number of issues that existed since the making of the Constitution. If something went wrong with the Constitution, the Founding Fathers planed to amend it, but they did not consider how they would amend a splitting nation’s views. It became evident that the nation was tearing apart due to opposing view points. These differences could not be changed by the amendment of the Constitution. On numerous accounts they did not see eye to eye: on the meaning of the Constitution itself, on many Domestic Issues, and became evident in Foreign Policy. The making of the Constitution not only developed rules of America, but it also developed a small tear in society’s views and if not mended would begin to rip. There were two different interpretations that were dominant in the viewing of the Constitution: Federalists had a loose interpretation that believed in implied powers, and Anti-Federalists believed that the powers not in the Constitution belong to the states. Even before the development of the Constitution, these two parties were bickering about whether the National government had too much power or too little and it carried through; Federalists still believed in a weak central government with emphasis on individual rights where as the Anti-Federalists saw the national government as too week. These two views were breaking farther apart with each step America took and lead to many controversies in the years to come. One debatable topic that approached America was the debts of the nation, most importantly state debts. Some states were prosperous and could afford to pay off their debts with ease such as Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and Georgia. These states had already fulfilled their part of paying. Others did not seem as well off: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina all did not find it as easy to get rid of the debts. Some believed that the Nation should consolidate the debts in the hands of the National Government; which would develop new securities over principal and accumulated unpaid interest and would also combine state debts with national obligations. This built up rage in those who had already paid their share and believed they had fulfilled their duty, opposing national intervention. It was not to their best interest for the Government to intervene.
In 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts were created under President John Adams due to tensions with France. The Sedition Act made it illegal for anyone to publish anything that could defame or speak badly of the United States government. The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed after President Adams’ presidential term was over. The Espionage and Sedition Acts, created from 1914 through 1921, made it illegal to cause disloyalty in the military forces and also prohibited any opposition to the government and their decisions in war. These acts were declared unconstitutional. Both were repealed after conflicts died down. The U.S. Patriot Act, created to investigate and protect against terrorism, made it legal for the United States’ government to search the records of citizens without their
From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together.
Document D presents the issue of the national bank, which was a hotly contested issue for most of the nation’s history. The decision to force states to allow the national bank reiterated the issue of state powers versus federal powers. This issue showed clear divisions between the northern states, who were more supportive of federal powers, and the southern states, who were more in favor of states rights. The financial decisions made in the Era of Good Feelings were often perceived as benefitting the southern states more than the northern states, causing separatism. Document A presents the issues of the Tariff of 1816. As demonstrated in the document, the southerners felt unfairly taxed, and did not feel as if they were getting anything out of the taxation. This type of disagreement about tariffs would continue, eventually leading to greater separatism and division. For these reasons, the title “The Era of Good Feelings” inaccuratly sums up the economic occurrences after the war of
One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic
Politically, there were questions about the amount power given to the federal government vs the states; as question since the adoption of the Constitution. At times states felt the need to question the power federal government. For example in the Decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) confirmed that no state could tax federal property, enforcing the supremacy clause (Document D). While this reinforced a nationalist point of view that challenge was clearly sectionalist in nature. Efforts to diffuse political rivalries were also present. An example was the request for Missouri statehood in late 1819 who was also requesting that slavery be permitted. To diffuse the sectionalist debate the Missouri Compromise was placed by congress. At the time the U.S. contained 22 states, evenly divided between slave and free. (Page 155).... (QUOTE BY JEFFERSON) A sectionalism standpoint was also depicted in the presidential election of 1824 where each state differed in voting for the men running for the same position (Document
When the Founding Fathers got together at Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, they had many different views and opinions as to how to govern our country. At the convention, the founders fought over the issues of slavery, representation and the Congress’s powers. Their personal lives had influenced their ideas and some of the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention. The founders’ different personal experiences, economic backgrounds, and coming from states of different sizes, economy and needs, led to the creation of the Three-Fifths Compromise, The Great Compromise, and the Slave Trade Compromise.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
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...
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
In 1798, when Congress passed both the Alien and Sedition Acts, it was very much constitutional. These acts were definitely in the best interest of America. America was a significantly young nation, at the time, and could not afford to create problems caused by foreigners coming to America. They did not have enough national power to sustain order if everyone was attacking the newly created laws, and many of those rebels being citizens from foreign countries, nevertheless.
compromise. Jefferson’s account suggests the growing divide, showing that without a mediator, the ideologies are too far divided to achieve legisla...
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...