Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
comparing federalists and anti federalists
main arguments of anti federalists
main arguments of anti federalists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: comparing federalists and anti federalists
Federalism and Anti-Federalism both have copious amounts of people on their side. However, the idea that the Federalists have, that a strong central government is key, is thoroughly preposterous. While a few Federalists have fairly persuasive ideas, those ideas would not work once applied. One of the notions that the Federalists have is the notion of the government ruling itself. As one of the most prominent Federalists said, “…first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”1 The government, if its own self controls it, will surely become corrupt. If there is only a sole government, there is a likelihood of the democracy turning into a tyranny, as Brutus estimated.2 Also, in the Federalist
If the government is to rule itself, then there needs to be more representatives to meet the needs and opinions of the citizens. Another belief the Federalists have is that the amount of representatives they want to employ is enough. The population of the country is considerably getting larger, and will continue to acquire more people. The states will have plainly have little power, which means that the interests of the population will have less meaning. A singular government can only be so far reaching when it comes to the different opinions of ordinary people.4 Despite what James Madison says about the different opinions quashing each other out5, two opposing sides of an opinion will not cancel out. While this might apply in science and math, human emotion does not work that way. One of the Federalists
If they all agree that the government should be entirely central, then they should agree on what justice means to them. One says, “Justice is the end of government.”11 Justice means fairness, and if fairness is the end of government, then it is the end of America. We fought for justice in the American Revolution, and if we had not, then these same Federalists would be grumbling how unjust the system is. There must be fairness in the government; otherwise, the government will be overthrown. History has shown that pattern again and again. If justice was truly the end of government, then we should not be electing presidents at all and keep the old way with monarchs, or push a new way and have a tyrant for a leader. The other idea the Federalists have for justice is the balancing act between the central government.12 If justice is supposedly the end of government, it cannot balance the people in control. Justice should help balance the government, but the balancing is an obligation between the governing and the governed. If the governed are being treated unfairly as a result of the central government being too strong, then justice must
·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
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
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.
In the final copy of the Constitution, many compromises were made between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The main goal of the Federalists’ was to ratify and publish the Constitution; however, the unanimous ratification by all thirteen states needed to publish the Constitution set their progress back, as the Anti-Federalists had many issues with the standing draft of the Constitution. The primary topic of discourse between the two factions was over the addition of the Bill of Rights. Another topic of contention held was the Anti-Federalists’ demands for full and fair representation in the government. Their argument was that the Constitution would give an overwhelming amount of power to the federal government, and leave the state and local governments deprived of power. They feared that the federal government would be too absent in governing to represent the citizen, as a
Philosophers that shaped and influenced the Federalist include Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu and John Locke. These philosophers believed in natural rights and built branches of government that would protect these natural rights. They believed that all men are instinctively selfish individuals and strive for self-preservation. From their viewpoint, balancing mans selfish desires and the desire to safeguard the community would be the ideal form of government for man. These philosophers built their ideas around the theory that too much liberty is bad for society. In order to avoid creating a strong central government comparable to Great B...
The federalists view saw the republicans view as a weakness. They insisted on a stronger common government. The federalists had an understanding that there could only be one sovereign in a political system, one final authority that everyone must obey and no one can appeal. They thought this was the only effective way in creating an effective central government. The independent states seemed to think it was clear that each one of them were independently sovereign, although based on history only small countries were suitable for the republican government. With history proving the republicans wrong for trying to create a republican government in the states the federalists were slowly trying to create a stronger central government. There first step was making the sovereign states agree to the Articles of Confederation which established a close alliance of independent states. The federalist central government was referred to as a “confederacy”.
Federalism, established by the constitution, is like a single piece of armor protecting us from tyranny. James Madison noted in Federalist Paper #51 that “the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal]...,” which describes his view on how the government should be divided. Each would have specific powers delegated to
Anti-Federalists believed that a representative should not “filter out” the people’s requests, but reflect on them exactly as the people asked. I feel this is totally incorrect, because if a person’s opinion is wrong, and it won’t benefit the country, then why should the representative follow through with it. Anti-Federalists are trying to appease the people instead of helping them and doing what’s best for them, even if the people disagree with it. That’s why the representative must be educated, and “have a good head on his shoulders”.
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...
Federalism was majorly influenced by Alexander Hamilton, who was the dominant author of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton did not want to repeat the mistake that Great Britain made and believed that spreading the power to multiple sources of government, along with checks and balances would abolish tyranny. Furthermore, it would aid the people to be heard and their concerns to be resolved faster and with attention from their government. Federalism is when a nation has two sources of government instead of one, the two levels are national and state/local. Similar to many American qualities, having a federal government has its advantages and disadvantages. Three positive factors of federalism are that there is a more orderly system to dispute and
Federalism can come in different forms, ideas, and interpretations, but regardless of your preference it separates the power held within our country. In any structure there must always be a way to distinguish between who has the authority over another in order to govern effectively. While there may be some cases where federalism does not seem to provide us with such a straight forward answer, such as medical marijuana and universal health care, it still does not take away from the fact that it is there and available for us to come together on important issues.
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.
Federalism is essentially the system of government in which a constitution divides power between a central government and regional governments (Lowi, A48). It, by definition, does not necessarily favor dividing the power in a particular way that would give more power to either the states or the federal government. When first formed, the American central government was very weak. Though the Constitution strengthened it, the states still had most of the power. Over time more and more power has been given to the United States’ federal government.
In conclusion Federalism is a big part of our country. Federalism does have its pros and cons but it’s safe to say that it has so far worked out fairly well. Still, we must keep in mind that federalism does affects our everyday lives and many times we take for granted that the individual in political parties will make the right decisions for the well-being of the public, though at times it is not always be the case. We must remember that for change to happen we must be involved and ready to learn and see and understand ways that we can make a difference, for at the end of the day it is our lives that are affected with every single decision that is made.
I believe that the advantages that Federalism provides far outweigh those of the anti-federalist movement. Our founding fathers wisely perceived that the idea of a centralized government was a big concern for abuse of power. Federalism represents many of the values of modern Democracy and grants individual states the power to make decisions that best suit their needs. Local government understands local issues better than a centralized government that often sees the nation as one big piece of land instead of smaller areas, each with distinct demographics and problems. For instance, issues concerning illegal immigration in Texas would be best handled by local authorities rather than by someone in Kansas, a non border state. By the same token, representatives of communities with different aspirations, ethnicity and cultures should be handled locally as the federal government might overlook the needs of these groups. One perfect example of the above mentioned scenario is the public school system. In a federalist system the local government decides what kind of schools will operate. Therefore, they might make better decisions when it comes to opening schools among large immigrant populations, perhaps creating a few bi-lingual schools to fulfill the population’s needs.