More handpicked essays just for you.
The struggle over the constitution: Federalists vs Anti-Federalists
The struggle over the constitution: Federalists vs Anti-Federalists
The struggle over the constitution: Federalists vs Anti-Federalists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In 1789 the Constitution had been published, but it did not include a Bill of Rights. The government was split into two groups, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists. Federalists thought that the Bill of Rights was not needed and that the Constitution could not improve. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists argued that it was needed and that it could improve the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists and the Federalists both publish documents that had the reasons that supported their claim. The Anti-Federalists support the Bill of Rights. They say that the Constitution can be improved, they want the people to have their natural rights. In the second document, they say that the people should have the power over the government. The reason behind this was because if it wasn’t for the people the government would have never been created and they would still be under the control of a ruler. The purpose of the government was to protect the natural rights of the people, the Anti- Federalists thought that without the Bill of Rights which stated the rights of the people the government would become greedy and use is to …show more content…
They stated “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Publius) In this quote from the first source, they are telling the Anti-Federalists why there should be a document to prevent the government of certain things and give the people those rights when the Constitution does that already, and it does not give the government power to do those certain things and to take them away. They go on to saying that the rights of the people are already protected by the Constitution, even the personal and private concerns have been attended to. “Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given…”
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.
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.
Both groups came to agreement and agreed that there needed to be a stronger authority requiring an independent salary to function. They both also agreed that they needed to raise safeguards against the tyranny. The anti-Federalists would not agree to the new Constitution without the “Bill of Rights.” The Federalists ended up including the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of people. It reassured the anti-Federalists the government could not abuse their power by taking it out on the people. The Federalists included the Bill of Rights to get the anti-Federalists votes and support in the Constitution to actually get it
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.
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.
George Washington the first president of the United States had a great duel ahead of him. Outraged citizens had a great deal of tension before his term, but when he entered into office those feelings of frustration arose. The Americans commenced to contradicting the ideas and beliefs of their counterparts, these hostile events eventually lead to the clashing of the citizens. Both sides were infuriated with one another, so they formed separate parties known as Republicans and Federalists. These clashes were instituted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison of the Republican Party, along with Alexander Hamilton of the Federalist Party. Alexander Hamilton and The Federalists supported a strong central government, and they believed that without one an individual would have too much power possibly forming an anarchy, while the Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and
The prominent figures at the time, such as Jefferson, realized this; Jefferson states in his letter to Madison that “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.” (Document E). The first part of Jefferson’s statement is plain and obvious: every decent government owes its people a Bill of Rights. The quote “rest on inferences”, however, means that a government, or rather any higher authority, should not attempt to guess what the people want. Instead, the government should represent the people, and ask them what they want. That is what common practices such as voting, and statements such as “no taxation without representation” embody. Nevertheless, in this letter Jefferson recognizes the Bill of Rights as a desideratum. Additionally, in Document C- Federalist Papers #38 - Madison reports that “A fourth concurs to the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity.” That statement illustrates what exactly the American people were asking for. They did not call for complete abandonment of political interests in favor of social freedoms, they wanted the State as a whole to have a set of rights. Also, the statement includes the words “political capacity”, which is a reference to the aforementioned notion that politicians and political parties should be limited in their power and should not be more important that the people. Rather, politics and socialization should stand on equal ground. Lastly, Document H exhibits four amendments from the Bill of Rights. Examining the wording of these amendments reveals how they specifically targeted the complains of the people and rectified them. Amendment I
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.
Supporters of a constitution, lacking a bill of rights, were called Federalists. The Federalists included members such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, whom wrote a series of essays that were designed to inform and persuade the public of their views pertaining to the issues of the day. Among these views was whether a bill of rights should be added to the constitution. The Federalists, via Alexander Hamilton, dealt with this issue in a foremost way in their 84th essay.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
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
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.
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.