The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists When the revolutionary war was over, the American colonists had found themselves free of British domination. Due to the fact that they were free from British control, they wanted to create their own system of government where tyranny would be practically diminished. Originally, the separate states were connected by The Articles of Confederation. But this document gave the central government no power of their own. Because of this, the states had many problems in international politics since they had just found freedom and did not have the respect of other countries. This caused a lot of thinking and it was decided that a document needed to be created to strengthen the central government and at the same time ensuring the safety of the states. So came to be the constitution. The constitution brought about a division between the American people. These two groups were the federalists, who believed that the constitution was good, and the anti-federalists who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people. These two groups had conflicting views but together, they both wanted the same thing. The same thing was that America should be controlled by the people by the principles of federalism. Both groups, the federalist and anti-federalists recognized the fact that power was being abused. They witnessed what had happened in the war and that their had been negative effects of power and the result was very clear. British vocation had made them very aware of the threat of corruption. Therefore, they wanted to make a government that would ensure the duration of an just republic. The federalists ex... ... middle of paper ... ...also argued that a state tax was unfair since each state was different with different needs. This could very well destroy a state economically while other states be fine. The federalists believed that congress had all the right to have direct taxation in ensure the safety of national security. The claimed that the constitution was created to make sure the sovereign power of the states was protected. The state legislature was responsible to elect two senators and the presidential electoral process. As stated before, both sides wanted to create a country where the peoples voice was heard and tyranny would not happen, but the way to accomplish this was a conflicting. The topic of power and who got what had torn America apart but soon enough, they formed a perfect solution in which both views where united to protect the citizens rights.
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.
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.
that their power was being taken away slowly he gave them positions in the army
As the country grows and matures into a great nation, people realize that change is inevitable and sometimes even needed. Within the time period of 1802 to 1817, many Jeffersonian Republicans realized that their ideals and principles weren’t always best for the nation. That is why they adopted some of the ideals of the old Federalist Party. Also, during this time, the Federalists died out. As realized after the Hartford Convention, the nation did not need nor want the Federalists anymore if the Democratic Republicans could get the job done. Although people changed a great deal during this time, it seemed to be beneficial to the nation. If people had not grown and never continued to learn and aspire to what is needed, then we may have never gotten to this great nation that the United States of America is today.
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.
... Constitutional Monarchy form of government was the solution not only the problems of the moment, but also the overarching issue guiding a nation and ensuring unity of effort.
believed in and would not back down. Being the base of the Bill of Rights, which
The Anti-Federalists were led by George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Mercy Otis Warren, Luther Martin, Robert Yeates, and George Clinton. The biggest flaw the Anti-Federalists found in the new constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights. The House of Representatives was the only group of governmental officials elected directly by the people and the Anti-Federalists believed the government is too far removed from the people to care for the people it's representing. Another concern of the Anti Federalists was how the government's powers were so vague and general that can give almost an infinite amount of power. The "necessary and proper" clause was one example of the government's vague powers, which gives the legislative body the ability to make all laws "necessary and proper." The new constitution did not include anything about how to stop the government from infringing on the rights it did not mention. This meant that the government could violate the freedom of speech, re...
The Federalist and Antifederalist viewpoints are what stemmed the whole mess of differences that made them so resistent to each other. The Federalist favored the establishing of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists opposed it. The differences in what these two groups wanted was mindboggler. Because of the sharp differences they had difference in the support size, who supported them, and what they exactly wanted in the Constitution.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
... addressed and resolved. The existing government under the Articles of Confederation was not simply working and to resolve this, delegates came from almost every state to lay down the foundations for the Constitution. Their task was to create a strong central government without giving too much power to one person or group. The war with Britain and the tyrannical rule of King George III led the people to detest tyranny because they had seen it in effect personally. The task of creating this Constitution was not simple and required some of the brightest minds to come together to ensure that it would fully guard against tyranny. Eventually, a sophisticated system was created that allowed the Constitution to create a strong central government that protected the liberties of the people while simultaneously making it impossible for tyranny to be evident in the government.
After the war America had won its independence from Britain. America was still in trouble. There was too much power in the hands of the people this was leading to a new kind of tyranny. America was becoming a mess and something needed to be done. The government needed to be granted more power. This is where the timely framing and ratification of the new constitution comes into play.
Constitution of United States was written in 1787 at Philadelphia convention. It is stated in article VII that the constitution needs to be accepted formally by nine out of thirteen states before it could be legally used. A big debate started whether the constitution should be ratified or not, dividing people into two groups federalists (supported ratification) and anti-Federalists (did not support ratification). Both groups had their own claims and arguments, federalists wanted a large heterogenous republic whereas anti-Federalists fought for homogeneous one. Federalists consisted of mostly rich, powerful gentry in favor of strong centralized government. Well educated influential leaders like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were in
...cience?? He believed that conscience should tell a person what to do not just a majority vote. To follow a government blindly ruins people they should only trust what they believe is right.
The principle of federalism was established by the Constitution to protect the country from tyranny as well. In this case, it is said that the national government cannot over power the fifty states. In the fifty states, each state consists of two democratic representatives.