When the members of the Constitutional Convention, after several months of vigorous debating, finally finished their work, many of the members still objected to this document. The Federalists were the group of people who desired to get the finished new constitution ratified and the Anti-Federalists were the group of people who disliked the new constitution and believed it shouldn't be ratified because it was missing several key parts. The Anti-Federalists formulated arguments based on the weaknesses they found in the new constitution and used them against the Federalists in order to gain support, while the Federalists convinced citizens of the righteousness of the new constitution in order to gain their support. The Anti-Federalists were led by George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Mercy Otis Warren, Luther Martin, Robert Yeates, and George Clinton. The biggest flaw the Anti-Federalists found in the new constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights. The House of Representatives was the only group of governmental officials elected directly by the people and the Anti-Federalists believed the government is too far removed from the people to care for the people it's representing. Another concern of the Anti Federalists was how the government's powers were so vague and general that can give almost an infinite amount of power. The "necessary and proper" clause was one example of the government's vague powers, which gives the legislative body the ability to make all laws "necessary and proper." The new constitution did not include anything about how to stop the government from infringing on the rights it did not mention. This meant that the government could violate the freedom of speech, re... ... middle of paper ... ...he part of the constitution which says that the national government may keep an army in peacetime is a flaw the Anti-Federalists saw in the constitution which could be used in a constitutional debate today. It could also be said the national government possesses too much power the state governments. The national government has authority over state governments and its laws are higher laws than state laws. The Anti-Federalists proposed great arguments for why the constitution should be changed and gained much support for opposing the Federalists, but the Federalists won the arguments in the end. The Federalists were able to hold their own ground and defend the new constitution from the arguments of the Anti-Federalists. These major arguments helped to shape our nation by creating the document we have been using as a guideline for our government for over 200 years.
who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.
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.
·Unless Congress adhered to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, critics argue, the central government might oppress the states and trample individual liberties, just as Parliament had done to the colonies
There are many differences between the Democratic-Republic party and the Federalist Party. Especially in the last decade of the 18th century which is late 1700’s, early 1800’s. They have different views on foreign relations and their beliefs on the war between France and Britain, their Federal government and vision for America. Their leaders are completely different people.
The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals such as all men were born equal (even though most of these men owned slaves), but their opinions about the role of government were different. Both parties had their own visions of how a new government would function and how the Constitution would support the government being proposed. Many argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government with very limited power. Specifically, the amount of power or the absence of power of a central government was the main disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As a result, the Federalists and Anti-federalists argued about the ratification of a new constitution, which would give the central government more power.
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers played a major role in US History. They dealt with many problems in politics. The papers were made after the Revolutionary war. People started to worry that the government would not last under the Articles of Confederation. Without having a backup plan just yet, some delegates met up and created the Constitution. The constitution had to be ratified before it became the rule of all the land. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers discuss whether the constitution should be approved or not. Some things Anti-Federalist and Federalists argued was a strong national government, a standing army, and whether or not the constitution should be ratified and why.
When the United States declared itself a sovereign nation, the Articles of Confederation were drafted to serve as the nations first Constitution.Under these Articles, the states held most of the power; but due to an almost absent centralized government, colonists were ill-equipped to deal with such practices as regulating trade both between states and internationally, levying taxes, solving inter-state disputes, negotiating with foreign nations, and most importantly enforcing laws under the current notion of "Congress". Realizing that there were several deficiencies in the current system of self-government, the states appointed delegates to ratify the situation and come up with a way to attain the aforementioned practices they needed to be a functional independent nation.
After the Constitution was written, the new born nation was immediately split into two political sides, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification. Federalists, southern planters or people that tended to hold interest in trade, advocated a strong executive. On the other hand, anti-federalists, back country people or people involved in business but not in the mercantile economy, opposed the ratification of the constitution. The two sides, after much debate, were able to come to a compromise after the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution.
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
On September 17, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention sent their new constitution to the states for ratification. The Federalists highly approved of the Constitution because it allowed for a more central and powerful government that was previously undermined under the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalists, however, didn’t want a powerful central government, but, instead, powerful state governments; in response to the Constitution, many Anti-Federalists began writing essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it. In retaliation to the Anti-Federalists attempt at getting states to not ratify the Constitution, many Federalists developed a group of essays known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the ratification of the new law system.
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 in an all too 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.
All of the topics discussed in these essays are very relevant to their respective causes. They are all backed up with valid information and examples. These essay's were written by very respectable men and show much insight on the subject of whether or not the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very opposing views, but used some of the same topics to support their point of views.
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
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.