Beliefs of the Anti-Federalists

722 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The federalists and the anti-federalists

The name, Anti-Federalists is not the best-suited name for what they truly are, or what they believe in. “They are called the Anti-Federalists, but it should be made clear at once that they were not Anti-Federal at all.” (Main xi) Originally, the word federalist, meant anyone who supported the Articles of Confederation. The term “Anti-Federalist” was placed on them to portray them as people who did not agree with the Federal Government, which was exactly opposite of what they are.

According to the proper definition, the Anti-Federalists were really more “Federal” than the so-called Federalists. Many Anti-Federalists felt this way because “they took their bearings from the principles of federalism laid down in the Articles.” (Allen viii) The Anti-Federalists say they stuck with the Articles of Confederation and stayed with the government. Before the Federalists took on their name, they were called the Nationalists. The Nationalists changed the name to Federalists to show that they were improving the government and were not trying to destroy it. The Federalists were more interested in forming a new government, while the Anti-Federalists wanted to improvise and improve on the Confederation.

One argument that the Anti-Federalists had against the forming of a new constitution was that they claimed it would “lead to a new consolidation system of government” and the leaders of Philadelphia intended “such a system and that the consolidated system would in the end destroy republican government and individual liberty as well as the independence of the states.” (Lewis 2) The Federalists feared that the government would have so much power it would be abused. They were constantly speculating about what would happen to the Unit...

... middle of paper ...

...but decided they should use it to divide themselves more clearly from the Federalists. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were at a constant war. The Anti-Federalists wanted a smaller government, and to keep the Articles of Confederation, and just add on to it, while the Federalists wanted a whole new government, which would make the national government more powerful. The Anti-Federalists were the most Federal in their beliefs.

Works Cited

Main, Jackson Turner. The Anti-Federalists Critics of the Constitution.

Williamsburg: University of North Carolina, 1961.

Allen, W.B. The Essential Antifederalist.

Lanham: University Press of America, 1985.

Kenyon, Cecelia M. The Antifederalists

Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.

Lewis, John D. Anti-Federalists Versus Federalists.

San Francisco: Chandler, 1967

Show More
Related

  • The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists

    664 Words  | 2 Pages

    who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.

    Read More

  • 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

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

    835 Words  | 2 Pages

    The leaders of the anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry from Virginia, George Mason from Virginia, Richard Henry Lee from Virginia, James Monroe from Virginia, George Clinton from New York, Samuel Adams from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts, Luther Martin from Maryland, and Samuel Chase from Maryland. The anti-Federalist leaders were men who had their careers and reputations already established. The anti-Federalists were the losers in the Constitution debate. They had accepted their defeat very well. They did not attempt to create problems and start fights or wars. Instead some leaders became well-known leaders in the government. James Monroe was the fifth president. George Clinton, along with Elbridge Gerry became vice presidents. Samuel Chase was in the Supreme Court. The anti-Federalists brought awareness to the subject matter of giving more power to the government and how dangerous it could be. They thought the Constitution could be improved with a bill of rights. They brought awareness to why our government needed to include a bill of rights. They wanted one to protect the rights of the people and the states. The anti-Federalists found the ratification process unreliable. They were correct because the Articles of Confederation stated it being

    Read More

  • Dbq The Beliefs Of The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

    576 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Similarities and Differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers

    882 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Bill of Rights To Protect From Tyranny

    768 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    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 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.

    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

  • Factionalism in America

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Drafting the Constitution

    2555 Words  | 6 Pages

    By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.

    Read More

  • Democracy In The 19th Century

    1358 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Anti-Federalists

    853 Words  | 2 Pages

    Our powerpoint states that the Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand, did not agree. The powerpoint mentions that they attacked every area of the Constitution, but two of its features attracted the most criticism. One was the extremely increased powers of the central government. The second included the lack of “bill of rights” that would have provided necessary liberties including freedom of speech and religion.

    Read More

  • Tenth Amendment Essay

    1467 Words  | 3 Pages

    Big supporters of the tenth amendment were anti-federalist. Anti-federalist are people who oppose a strong central government.

    Read More

  • Anti-Federalist vs Federalist

    2017 Words  | 5 Pages

    After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.

    Read More

  • Health Care Allocation

    1200 Words  | 3 Pages

    The healthcare industry of the Bahamas is divided into two sectors, public and private health care. There are five hospitals, which includes two private hospitals and three public hospitals, and numerous public community clinics along with the many private facilities through which medical services are rendered (Doctors Hospital, 2009). The Princess Margaret Hospital, which is the main public facility, according to Smith (2010) in 1905 was people’s last choice when seeking medical attention. Smith described the then hospital as being partitioned into four areas, “for the sick, indigent, lepers and insane” (Smith, 2010). Smith (2010) further expressed that the medical services were free and those that were financially stable paid for treatment to be carried out at their homes. Today, 108 years later, much has changed within health care arena. Presently, there is an increase in the number of persons resorting to the public hospitals and public clinics for medical attention. For those that are in good financially standings they make use of private hospitals or/and other private medical facilities. While some people may use the public medical facilities by choice there are others whom, because of their income or lack of income, have no other alternative but to fall at the hands of the public services. Too, for many years the Bahamas has had the problem of immigrants from Haiti crossing the Bahamian borders illegally and this therefore results in an increase in the funds allocated for the health care industry. According to McCartney (2010) the Haitian nationals accounted for 11.5% of the Bahamas population, hence adding to the government health care budget (McCartney, 2013). The reality is that the Bahamas is far from winning...

    Read More

More about Beliefs of the Anti-Federalists

Open Document