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.
According to Elite Democrats, political representatives “should filter the views of the people through their superior expertise, intelligence and temperament”. Federalists were very intelligent when it came to people’s attitudes and personality. People are very self-centered and egotistical, only looking out for themselves. Having a spokesperson chosen by the people would help them with their problems, and to get their word across. In my opinion, elites who have studied politics in college, and who know the government well are obviously more intelligent than the citizens when it comes to representation. They would have a better understanding of what to do in a situation compared to the people.
Anti-Federalists believed that a representative should not “filter out” the people’s requests, but reflect on them exactly as the people asked. I feel this is totally incorrect, because if a person’s opinion is wrong, and it won’t benefit the country, then why should the representative follow through with it. Anti-Federalists are trying to appease the people instead of helping them and doing what’s best for them, even if the people disagree with it. That’s why the representative must be educated, and “have a good head on his shoulders”.
Elite Democrats believe that the majority of people are not interested in politics as much as their interested in their own private lives and wellbeing. People aren’t concerned with politics unless it pertains to their own lives, which is what the Anti-Federalists believe. However, I disagree that if people don’t feel like getting involved with government and politics, it’s not the democratic system’s fault.
who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people.
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.
On September 28, 1787 Confederation Congress sent out the draft of the Constitution. This was the first time in history for the people to debate, discuss, and decide with a vote for how they wanted to be governed. There were two groups that debated the thought of the Constitution. They were called Federalists and anti-Federalists.
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.
...lieve the Electoral College should be made up of men able to analyze the specific qualities of the president of that time. Also, in Anti-Federalist paper No. 68, it discusses that the president should be elected by a certain number of electors, much like the Electoral College.
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
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.
The political views of the federalist and the republicans towards the government of the United States of America were different. The republicans stressed equality of rights among citizens allowing people to govern themselves. The federalists believed in a stronger government one in which was sovereign and had superior power over the local governments.
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
A primary document, it was a message for the Federalists and to the American public in general. Although they did not fully support the Articles of Confederation, they did not want a new Constitution to be written. These people were concerned about how little freedom they would have if the federal government got more power. Because of this, they are against the beliefs of the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists are also concerned about how the national government could abuse its power if given a higher authoritative role in the revised Constitution. In order to show the concern, the authors write, “the legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; there is no limitation to this power..." The Anti-Federalists were afraid that allowing the national government to have so much power would be like living under Britain 's authority all over again. This would render the American Revolution pointless, they believed. They supported the state governments in having authority to tax, govern, and to have independence from the central government in doing so. They believe that if the central government starts taxing the people, the state governments would not be able to raise money
People have their own perspective of a government that they envision for their people. Thomas Jefferson has been the president of the United States and ruled under a monarch. Jefferson couldn’t tolerate the abuse from a monarch, so he rebelled against the British crown. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence, and declared the colonies were free from British rule. Before he became the author of The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was established “ as an ardent republican and revolutionary” (Jacobus 77). Jacobus states Jefferson is, “one of the most versatile Americans of any generation” (Jacobus 78). In The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson and the founding fathers envisioned a government that would govern the people, and the people would be free. The people must be governed with rights, Jefferson implies it’s the government’s duty to guide and secure the people, therefore, he believes the government’s obligation to the individual is more important than the individuals obligation to the state.
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.
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.