In early American government there were two emerging political views that were blatantly obvious in the new states; federalists and anti-federalists. In this paper two main topics of interest for each of the parties will be discussed, the role that government should have according to the differing views and the subject of foreign policy. The role of government as a according to the Federalists They support a stronger federal government. They felt that people can't govern themselves and that a nation must have a way to get rid of debts. Federalists also believed that only a strong central government can ensure states participation in general good. Therefore representation is distributed more equally a single executive can govern better than multiple executives. They felt federal government provides common defense, raises revenue in time of war, and deals with other nations more effectively than a confederation. Federalists were respectable and embraced the cultured and propertied groups. They lived in settled areas along the seaboard, not in the raw backcountry. They were in outlook rather closely akin to the conservative Loyalist group of Revolutionary days. But by remaining Loyalists it assisted them in the ratification. Federalists strongly supported the Constitution. Anti-federalists were alarmed by the absence of a bill of rights. Federalists assured them it would be added by amendment. Federalists believed that the three branches of government-legislative, judicial and executive- effectively represent the people. Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed the stronger federal government. The felt states had rights, which the central government threatened to trample. In their eyes the constitution is a tyrannical document without a Bill of Rights. The constitution granted too much power over taxation to the Federal government. The anti-federalists has strong opinions when it came to the branches on the federal government. Congress should not have the power to meddle in the commerce of the states. The federal legislature is designed as an aristocratic institution, determined to steal the political prerogative of the people. The Anti-federalists consisted primarily, though not only, of the states' rights devotees, the back-country dwellers, the one-horse farmers,... ... middle of paper ... ...main backers of the party were wealthy and well-known, and thus would be able to weather conflicts with foreign countries. II. Federalist Party position’s impact on nation A. Washington and Adams were first two Presidents & also Federalists (although Washington to somewhat lesser extent); thus their actions were those of the Federalist Party and also the first major actions of the nation in foreign affairs. III. Democratic-Republican position A. Wanted to settle with French and British, due to America’s lack of a strong military. B. Overall justification: America wasn’t a world power, and thus it was a poor idea to provoke Britain and France. Also, war would have an extremely negative effect on the farmers and merchants which made up the party. IV. Democratic-Republican position’s impact on nation Constituencies of party were employed in the tasks of most of the nation (farming, mercantilism, etc.) Thus, the interests of the majority of the citizens seemed to be with the Democratic-Republicans.
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.
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
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
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
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
After James Monroe’s second term as the fifth president of the United States ended, preparations were already underway for the next election to determine who would become the president. There were four prominent candidates running. They were Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, and Andrew Jackson. John C. Calhoun, who was Secretary of War under Monroe, was originally thinking of running as president but dropped out in the hope of becoming Vice President. Clay was the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Adams was the Secretary of State under President Monroe, Crawford was most notably Secretary of the Treasury under Monroe, and Jackson was a war hero during the War of 1812. For the first time, none of the men who were running for office identified as Federalists. A Federalist is someone who believes in a strong central government. All four men said that they were Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic-Republicans, who were also known as the Republican party, generally opposed the viewpoints that the Federalists held. They believed in states’ rights; that is that the states should be more powerful than the National government....
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.
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...
Once again, Jefferson changed from Republican views to Federalist views because of his realist and public official side. Jefferson knew this would help the United States grow and it would keep Louisana out of the hands of other countries in Europe. Because of the war between France and Britain, the United States wanted to perserve their neutrality. The United States could trade with either of the countries without facing attacks. Jefferson asked Congress for an embargo.
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”.
The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal courts. They argued
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
Anti-federalist were the men that felt that the states should have more control and that the constitution should not be ratified. Having the government ratify the constitution would allow the government to gain too much power which could easily lead to a monarch. The whole reason everyone left england was to get more freedoms and if the constitution is to be ratified who knows if the freedoms the people just got back will be taken away again.
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.
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...