Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
what are the differences between federalist and antifederalist
Bill of Rights and their application to present day society
what are the differences between federalist and antifederalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added (US Constitution, Preamble).”After the leaders of the United States wrote the Constitution, they had to get all thirteen states to agree to it. Some states didn 't want to agree unless they could add some specific rights for individual people. So in 1791 the United States added ten new rights to the Constitution. They were known as the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The document 's purpose was to spell out the rights of the people that the government …show more content…
One of the many disagreements between federalists and Anti-Federalists were the constitutions lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power (“Bill of Rights – Bill of Rights Institute”). The Federalists were those who supported the Constitution and thought that there should be a new Union created by a strong centralized government and individual local governments. They felt that the bill of rights was unnecessary because it was implied with the rights that the Constitution did not specifically say would be kept by the government. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists were opposed to such a form of government since the Constitution lacked clarity with the protection of the people. The Anti-Federalists wanted certain rights and guarantees that were to be a part of the constitution (Scholastic News: Constitution Day). A clear depiction of the Anti-Federalists attitude was shown by a series of essays, the “Centinal Essays,” which “assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion (The Constitution of the United States: A History)”. Eventually, the Bill of Rights had been adopted to settle down the …show more content…
The freedom of religion is a guarantee that the government will not establish and or endorse any national religion. It cannot treat any citizen or group in a biased way based exclusively on their religious preferences or beliefs. The freedom of speech is the right for citizens to speak his or her mind on any subject and in any point of view without punishment as long as it does not harm anyone. Also, the freedom of press lets individuals ' print whatever ideas, thoughts or information they like, as long as it does no harm to others. Similar to the other freedoms, the right to peaceably assemble falls into place with the theme of the right to express yourself as you see fit. This leads to the right to petition the government, whereas the people have the right to tell the government to change the way it is being run if they have a problem with it. It is clear that all of these rights are closely entangled and that the feed directly off of one another. Therefore the people have the overall right to express themselves freely in any form and about any topic with regards to the welfare of others around them. At the end of the day, the
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.
who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.
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.
The Anti-Federalist Papers documented the political background in which the Constitution was born. The Anti-Federalist saw threats to rights and authorizations in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. A central government is the political authority that governs the entire nation. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. The Anti-Federalist proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. Anti-federalists continued to view a large and powerful central government as leading to autocracy, appealed to the actions of the British king and Parliament to demonstrate their point. Anti-Federalists
In the final copy of the Constitution, many compromises were made between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The main goal of the Federalists’ was to ratify and publish the Constitution; however, the unanimous ratification by all thirteen states needed to publish the Constitution set their progress back, as the Anti-Federalists had many issues with the standing draft of the Constitution. The primary topic of discourse between the two factions was over the addition of the Bill of Rights. Another topic of contention held was the Anti-Federalists’ demands for full and fair representation in the government. Their argument was that the Constitution would give an overwhelming amount of power to the federal government, and leave the state and local governments deprived of power. They feared that the federal government would be too absent in governing to represent the citizen, as a
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
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.
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.
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
The Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is often called “the freedom of speech.” It provides a multitude of freedoms: of religion, of speech, of the press, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government. Religious freedom is vitally important to this day because it eliminates the problem of religious conflicts. Historically, many people died for their beliefs because their government only allowed and permitted one religion. T...
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 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.
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States. States were neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held. between those who supported the Constitution.
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.
How well has federalism worked in the United States? This is all a matter of opinion. Federalism has indeed been an active structure for government that fits in quite well with the changing American society. This particular system of government has been around for over two hundred years, and under all those years the separation of power under American federalism has changed numerous amounts of times in both law and practice. The United States Constitution does allow changes and amendments in the Constitution have assigned miscellaneous roles to the central and state governments than what originally intended. The suitable equilibrium between national and state powers is repeatedly an issue in American Politics.