They felt that a strong powerful central government was necessary especially after the failed Articles of Confederation. “The framers of constitution, the federalists, argued that the common people were self-interested and passionate creatures who should not be entrusted with all reins of government.” (By the People, page 10) Federalists did not agree with antifederalists and argued that they were just thinking of themselves and not the entire nation. They also believed that antifederalists were being fearful for no reason as national government had powers granted by the constitution which prohibited them from any sort of corruption. It was a limited government where federal government cannot do whatever they wanted, they had limitations under constitution. They also highlighted the fact that the constitution separated basic powers of government into three equal branches. This separation of power gave balance and limited the chances of tyranny. They also mentioned the benefits of checks and balances. They argued that central government would not be able to misuse it’s power as each branch could check or limit the other branches. They also responded to Antifederalists fear of strong federal court by saying that federal courts had limited jurisdiction as some power was shared with local courts. They believed that strong federal court was a necessity so judicial branch of government could do it’s part of checks and balances on executive and legislative branches of government. Federalists provided all their arguments by writing federalists papers. These papers are written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay supporting their beliefs and arguments through 85 articles and essays. These federalists papers were very influential as they were able to gain support to ratify the constitution. Even though other states pro constitution North Carolina and Rhode Island held out until Bill of Rights
The Constitution that was created had a strong central government and weak state governments. The anti-federalists believed in weak central and strong state governments, as the way it was in The Articles of Confederation. They thought that if the Government got all of the power, they would lose their rights and freedoms. This makes sense, because if the people making the rules live relatively close to you, they will be able to judge better than a house of representatives or a president who is 1000 miles away. They also remembered that from their experiences as British colonists, a federal government can tax, and can tax the people highly. One more reason that they didn’t like it is because it didn’t contain a Bill of Rights, so it is hard to judge what rights this government is going to give you.
...ility to expand and not limit the rights of the people to what was expressed in the Bill of Rights and sought to make a more universal impact on the freedom in society. They also wanted to create a social structure that would be balance with the power vested in the positions of authority so that society could be stratified but not dominated. Having 500 years of British constitutional history to draw upon, the Federalists were able to create a charter that took the functional elements of British democracy and create a society with more opportunity for freedom and advancement. Based on these points it is clear that the Constitution was an instrument that both preserved individual liberty and maintained social order.
During the Revolutionary War the rebelling colonies needed to find a way to govern the new nation and created the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation created a weak federal government with most of the power given to the states. The weak federal government was unable to address a number of primarily economic and diplomatic problems facing the nation. A Federalist movement started in order to create a stronger federal government that could better handle these problems. In 1787 delegates were called into Philadelphia to write a constitution with more power granted to the federal government. There was a small but significant opposition to the idea of a federal constitution. Those who were opposed to a strong federal government were called Antifederalists. Antifederalists were worried that the powers granted to the federal government under the constitution would be abused and citizens could be treated as they were under British rule. In 1789 Antifederalists insisted “that the state constitutions, and citizens needed explicit protection from possible excesses by the federal government” (Divine, Breen, Williams, Gross, Brands 150). Antifederalists thought the Constitution put too much power in the hands of the federal government. In almost every state convention, the Antifederalist “pointed out the need for greater protection of individual liberties, rights that people presumably had possessed in a state of nature… A bill of rights, therefore, ought to set forth the purposes for which the compact is made, and serves to secure the minority against the usurpation and tyranny of the majority” (152). The Bill of Rights was intended to protect rights of citizens from federal government.
They also believed that the constitution would increase taxes and weaken the state's. Finally the federalist agreed to add the bill of rights as amendments to the constitution. On September 25, 1789, Congress passed twelve amendments. Ten were ratified by the states by the end of 1791. The first ten of the constitution compose what we know as the Bill of Rights. Nine of them placed limitations on the new government by forbidding on certain fundamental rights such as: freedom of religion, speech, and the press; immunity from arbitrary arrest; trial by jury; and others. I believe that federalist and antifederalist were right and wrong in both ways. I believe the antifederalist were nervous for their own rights. After everything with King George they were nervous for starting
Once the citizens saw the wording of the Constitution, they immediately demanded a Bill of Rights to protect their liberties. There was a lot of opposition to the Constitution. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists did not want to attempt to create a new Constitution, or even worse have another American Revolution if the people felt their rights were truly being violated. The founding fathers wanted the support of the people for their government. The Bill of Rights was a compro...
The convention decided the solution to most of these problems was a robust federal government, which would have immense powers and authority to handle the affairs of a nation that was growing rapidly. While this large federal government would solve many of the problems that the nation faced, it also presented new challenges and concerns. Many Americans, who would become known as the Antifederalists, worried that a new government would slowly take away their rights-especially one with a President, two houses of congress, and federal judges. With so many
The Constitution was created on September 17, 1787 but was not ratified until June 1788 due to heated debates about what should or should not be in the constitution. The two groups that emerged during the drafting of the Constitution were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted a strong national government that could protect the states, maintain order across a large nation, regulate trade and protect citizen’s rights. Anti-Federalists desired a weak national government and strong state governments. They wanted to protect civil liberties and limit abuse of power. The anti-federalist refused to ratify the Constitution without the addition of a Bill of Rights.
The founding fathers were quite concerned when writing the Constitution about what the breakdown of power should be. They did not want the central government to hold too much power like it had in England, but they needed a federal government stronger than the Articles of Confederation to keep the states together.
The Federalists, were the supporters of the Constitution; meaning that they supported a stronger central government. Madison who wrote “Federalist 10” rejects virtue and homogeneity as the basis for a republic; since the government officials in England had too much power from their internal regulation. The government was...