Differences Between The Federalist And The Anti-Federalists

1056 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Confederation vs. constitution

When ever there are two differing opinions on any topic there is always the possibility that the discussion will become heated. Two opposing sides that became so heated that they went to war with each other in America was the South and North. The differences between the North and South can be seen from the colonial period when each side first came to America. During the Constitutional debate there was a lot of heated debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that continued to dived the two opposing sides. The developments during the Market Revolution continued to divide these two sides due to the Cotton Gin. The Northern States compared to the Southern states can be seen as a more agreeable and established society compared to …show more content…

The Federalists believed in a strong central government while the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the power in the states. The Anti-Federalists liked state power over a powerful central government because they wanted a way to protect their ideals against the Federalists such as the controversial topic of slavery between the two of them. The Federalists saw slavery as a chance to use a strong central government to control slavery and to go against it. The Federalists would use the Constitution as a way to promote their stance of anti slavery as a racial and moral issue and that it was unconstitutional. However, the Anti-Federalists did not believe in the ideas of the Constitution and preferred the Articles of Confederation because the articles gave most of the power to the states. This power in the states changed though when the Constitution was adopted after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. This worried the Anti-Federalists because the Federalists now had all the power and they where strongly against slavery. These two opposing sides and their ideals of where the power should lay brought the divide between them to a much greater distance then it was

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

    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

    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

  • Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist

    852 Words  | 2 Pages

    The. The Anti-Federalist claimed that the sovereignty of the states was to be maintained then the states must be granted the vital powers of government and the power of Congress is limited to the United States. However, they claimed that this was not. under the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution gave Congress unlimited power and did not explicitly detail any control.

    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

  • The Sectionalism of the 19th Century

    1108 Words  | 3 Pages

    The North was based on industrialism and the South on agriculture. Perhaps one of the greatest issues ever faced by the United States was that of slavery. The South had become extremely content with their way of life with slaves and the North were very against it. This caused many disagreements between the two regions and ultimately was one of the main causes of the Civil War. They also had different views on tariffs due to the difference in the economies. The North was booming with industrialization and they didn’t like competing with the goods being imported. The tariffs provided protection for the northern industries and in turn had a negative impact they had on the southern economy. This only amplified the uneasy feeling that the South felt about the Union. They feared the Union would grow too powerful and the people would eventually lose their voice. It was the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that opened the door and unleashed the beast that was sectionalism in the nation. After the compromise the North and South had a hard time agreeing on anything.

    Read More

  • Essay On The Difference Between The Federalist And Federalists

    706 Words  | 2 Pages

    There have been many different parties surface since the beginning of the American political system. They all have had different thoughts, policies, and motivations. Each party has their own agenda some have made significant contributions and others have not. The first split, and beginning of the party system, came with the variation between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. These two parties were extremely different in thought, strategies, and status of people involved such as their leaders and believes on how to run the government. The Federalists worked to create a stronger national government, supported British in foreign affairs, and favored a national bank. The Democratic-Republican Party operated to advocate states’ rights, supported the French in foreign affairs and opposed a national bank. These are some of the differences that set apart these two major government Parties.

    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

  • Economic Causes To The Civil War

    991 Words  | 2 Pages

    By the year of 1860, the North and the South was developed into extremely different sections. There was opposing social, economic, and political points of view, starting back into colonial periods, and it slowly drove the two regions farther in separate directions. The two sections tried to force its point of view on the nation as a whole. Even though negotiations had kept the Union together for many years, in 1860 the condition was unstable. The presidential election of Abraham Lincoln was observed by the South as a risk to slavery and many believe it initiated the war.

    Read More

  • Summary And Slavery: The Causes Of The Missouri Compromise

    672 Words  | 2 Pages

    Tempers raged and arguments started because of the Missouri Compromise. The simple act caused many fatal events because of what was changed within the United States. It may not seem like a big thing now, but before slavery had been abolished, the topic of slavery was an idea that could set off fights. The Missouri Compromise all started in late in 1819 when the Missouri Territory applied to the Union to become a slave state. The problem Congress had with accepting Missouri as a slave state was the new uneven count of free states and slave states. With proslavery states and antislavery states already getting into arguments, having a dominant number of either slave or free states would just ignite the flame even more. Many representatives from the north, such as James Tallmadge of New York, had already tried to pass another amendment that would abolish slavery everywhere. Along with other tries to eliminate slavery, his effort was soon shot down. The fact that people couldn’t agree on whether or not slavery should be legalized made trying to compose and pass a law nearly impossible.

    Read More

  • Federalist Vs Anti-Federalist

    912 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Adams stated that “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” Federalists believed this, and fought verbal and written battles against the Anti-Federalists, who disagreed with John Adams. Anti-Federalists believed that in an elite democracy, the elite’s would get greedy and selfish, and only worry about themselves. As I’m on the Federalist side, I believe that John Adams was correct in his statement, and that the government is only trying to uphold the rights and liberties that each citizen ought to have.

    Read More

  • Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Anti-Federalists

    853 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Secession Crisis

    903 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the years leading up to the Civil War, there was great conflict throughout the United States. The North and South had come to a crossroads at which there was no turning back. The Secession Crisis is what ultimately led to the Civil War. The North and the South disagreed on slavery and what states would be free states. The South despised Lincoln's election and rose up in revolt by forming the Confederate States of America.

    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

More about Differences Between The Federalist And The Anti-Federalists

Open Document