Federalists vs Anti-Federalists: The Constitution Debate

885 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Disputes of the federalist and anti federalist papers

What is the Constitution? The Constitution summarizes the laws of the United States of America and it founded the government that we use today. Although the Constitution is accepted today, anti-federalists opposed the Constitution in 1787, specifically because anti-federalists believe that the new government would have no power and the military would overpower. Federalists, or those that supported the Constitution, countered the arguments against the Constitution by stating that the new government would unite the United States of America and it would have power, and the military would not be overpowering. Anti-federalists opposed the Constitution and one of their arguments was that the government had no power. Anti-federalists thought that …show more content…

In response to the anti-federalists arguing that the new government would have no power over the country, they said that the Constitution would unite the United States of America as a whole. Federalists countered the argument that the new government would lack power, saying, “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other,” therefore stating that the new government can benefit political parties (Doc. G). Also, federalists said that Congress would be capable of executing laws, showing that the new government would be in control of the nation (Doc. F). Federalists also stated, “Congress likewise are to have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but have no other command of them, except when in actual service,” to prove that the Congress could provide for the military too, therefore showing that the government had nationwide power (Doc. F). The federalists countered the anti-federalists’ argument that the new government would hold no power in its hands by saying that the United States of America would

Show More
Related

  • Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

    348 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.

    Read More

  • Federalists vs Anti-Federalists: The Constitution Debate

    719 Words  | 2 Pages

    My fellow citizens. I stand here today, December 1, 1787, to open your eyes as to what is going on around you and why it is happening. As you may have heard the Constitution was approved by the delegates on September 17. It was sent to the states for ratification on September 28. 9 out of 13 states have to ratify the Constitution before it becomes a law. Not all states agree with the Consitution as it is, consequently 2 opposing groups emerge: Federalist (those who support) and Anti-Federalist (those who oppose).

    Read More

  • Patrick Henry Anti Federalist Argument Analysis

    710 Words  | 2 Pages

    Patrick Henry’s Anti-Federalist argument had a big purpose when it was wrote. It was Henry’s way of talking about his objections to the new Constitution. He listed varies objection to the constitution and stated reasoning behind his objections to make others see his point. Henry was a liberal activist. He wrote his document in first person. The audience for his stated was for the general public. The general public that this would have been in interest to was the government, anti-federalists, the state, and any adult in general.

    Read More

  • Hamilton Argues Against A Bill Of Rights

    994 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed by an all to dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.

    Read More

  • Constitution Dbq Research Paper

    341 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the late 1700’s, men gathered to give the United States a written plan of government. This was meant to replace the Articles of Confederation, a weaker form of government. They called this new plan the Constitution. Federalists supported the idea of a stronger national government, while Anti-Federalists opposed the plan. The Framers came to agreements and made compromises; in the end, mostly everybody was happy with their new form of government.

    Read More

  • Essay On Federalist 10

    527 Words  | 2 Pages

    The primary problem Madison addresses in this essay is that Madison felt that factions could be dangerous, meaning violent and could cause damage. One of the stronger arguments favoring the Constitution establishes a government very capable of controlling these factions.

    Read More

  • Essay On Ratification Of The Constitution

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Federalist Vs Antifederalist Analysis

    498 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Federalist wanted all thirteen states to be united as one, and in doing they they wanted each state to have two Senators representing them in congress for everyone to have an equal say. The Antifederalist Worried that the states would lose their individual power to have local control and this is why they strongly opposed the formation of the Senate and the Constitution. Because of the Antifederalist view on liberal state ruling, they had a dispute in fighting for states rights in the 1800s. The Bill of Rights was crucial to the Antifederalist because it gave the states some right back to govern themselves and run a little on there own laws. However,

    Read More

  • Federalists Vs Anti-Federalists: Constitution Conflict

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    Discuss the conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists in the writing and ratification of the Constitution.

    Read More

  • The Creation Of The Constitution

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Federalist Arguments Against The Constitution

    1206 Words  | 3 Pages

    What prevents this government from being taken over by the agendas and interests of the bigger states, especially since the proposed federal government would be a republican one? Their concerns about power stem from three major aspects: taxation power, military power, and judicial power. The government proposed has no limits on how it can tax people. To have the ability to do this is a power beyond all others, since, as Brutus says “...it connects with almost all other powers, or at least in process of time draw all other after it; it is the great mean of protection, security, and defense, in a good government, and the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one.” This power is also connected to the ability to raise a military. Having the power and loyalty of a military to enforce the laws could be extremely dangerous if the government decided to oppress the people or the States Their last concern is directed to the supreme court and its broad power which applies to all civil cases. This could allow the government to bypass any power of the states, and overrule their decisions. If the government can ignore the State Government’s authority, then what stops the government from removing them, since they would only get in the way? The antifederalists are worried that a single, federal government would be too

    Read More

  • Constitutional Elasticity Examples

    663 Words  | 2 Pages

    Like Jefferson and Hamilton, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists obtained very different views regarding the document and the issues within the document. The first political party of the United States were the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton (“The Great Debate”). The Federalists supported the Constitution and tried to convince the states to ratify the document (“The Great Debate”). The idea of a Bill of Rights and amendments were argued among the Federalists, eventually making the concession to announce the willingness to take up the matters (“The Great Debate”). Without this compromise of the Federalists, the Constitution may never have been ratified by the States (“The Great Debate”). The Anti-Federals obtained the opposite ideas of the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution and believed that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights (“The Great Debate”). This group was not exactly a united group, but they decided to be involved within many elements (“The Great Debate”). These elements include separate factions in which one faction opposed the Constitution because they thought a stronger government threaten the sovereignty of the states (“The Great Debate”). Another faction argued that a new, centralized government would contain all of the characteristics of Great Britain that the country had

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

    521 Words  | 2 Pages

    Anti-Federalists supported the idea of state governments having more power, assuming that independent governments would better recognize the needs of their own people. The Anti-Federalists proposed the Bill of Rights, feeling that the constitution didn’t thoroughly protect citizens. Anti-Federalists also felt that constitution would put too much power in the Supreme Court. From an Anti-Federalists paper titled Brutus 15, it was said that, “There is no power above them that can correct their errors or controul their decisions — The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits” Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #15.

    Read More

  • Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Anti-Federalists

    853 Words  | 2 Pages

    Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Federalist 10

    133 Words  | 1 Pages

    In Federalist #10, Madison argues that factions are dangerous for a well-formed government. He claims that factions are an inevitable part of human nature, that needs to be monitored by the government in order to control the damage that they cause. Publius states that as long as men have different amounts of wealth, property, and have different opinions, there will continue to be factions. Madison claims that there are only two ways to control a faction, to remove its causes or to control its effects. To remove the causes of a faction, you either destroy liberty or force every citizen to share the same opinions and beliefs. Therefore, the only logical way to control factions are to control their causes so that the majority factions don’t impose

    Read More

More about Federalists vs Anti-Federalists: The Constitution Debate

Open Document