In 1787, the development of the American Constitution initiated a battle between two opposing parties, known as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist. Both of these parties shared had political thoughts they agreed upon, as well as political thoughts that of course they disagreed on. However, both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist would soon compromise and ultimately commence a mutual solution, a solution that favored the Anti-Federalist. Out of the two parties the Anti-Federalist had the strongest arguments against the constitution, due to their support in protecting the rights of the people, as well as arguing that the national government has too much power, which the Federalist did not uphold. The Federalist which consisted of …show more content…
The Federalist believed that establishing a national government was not only possible, but mandatory in order to create a healthy nation. Until this point, the common belief was that a government may solely operate effectively, if it had little power. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a powerful national government would better sustain the rights of the people. The Federalist also argued that, that the new government would not have too much power because of checks and balances that would help prevent the national government from total control, which was stressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself”. While the opposite party, the Anti-Federalist were small farmers and middle class people who were led by Patrick Henry, and other important middle class figures. The Anti-Federalist argued against the idea of a powerful national government, which would limit the powers of the state. One other key argument made by the Anti-Federalist emphasized the need for a bill of rights. Anti-Federalist feared that with the lack of a bill of rights, the Constitution would not …show more content…
The Anti-Federalist feared that the Constitution would lead the United States down an all-too-familiar road of political corruption. One issue that the Anti-Federalists found within the Constitution was the Executive branch’s new powers, especially how a single veto could overturn a bill from the Legislative branch. Another issue Anti-Federalists disliked was how Congress is able to collect and raise taxes, this sprung the idea of Congress might abuse their power. The Anti-Federalist also argued how a bill of rights is necessary in order to preserve the rights of the people, one modern day example that highlights this is how the National Security Agency otherwise known as NSA, disturbs the privacy of the people. One aspect of this issue that violates the bill of rights is how the NSA is continuing their actions without a warrant, the fourth amendment clearly states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”. Terrorism alone is not a rational explanation for these because the NSA is monitoring millions of individuals that have no correlation with terrorism. The Anti-Federalist were the backbone of the states, in other words they were the middle class. The middle class is the majority in society and throughout history the middle class drives a nation,
The anti-federalists feared a strong government because it posed a threat to the people rights and that the president could be a king. I find that the federalist camp more appealing because they realized the weakness of the Confederation and tried to improve it such as the Judicial court system. There was no system of courts in the national government, the courts were dependent on the other states. This also made it that the states can ignore the national law without any consequences because the Congress has no way to enforce its own law. But the constitution helps the Congress to establish a national court system.
Overall, the British government was a tyrannical rule in which the ruling and decisions were all up to one person, King George III. Since the United States had previously already had to go through a terrifying event that was the British government, the Anti Federalists wanted to learn from their mistakes and avoid a government that would possess unmanageable power which would lead to corruption within the system and oppression for the people under the rule. Secondly, the Anti Federalists had also debated that there was a lacking of a Bill of Rights, which would protect the freedom of the people and make sure that the government would not overstep boundaries. With the current path that the Constitution was following the Anti Federalists feared the downfall of the United States, with all three of the branches of the new central government threatening all of the beliefs and ideals that the Anti Federalists had followed. Not only was there a lacking of power and representation for the people in the state there was also a lack of representation in the Central government for the people in order to speak out against the ratification of the constitution.
The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.
The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification. Thomas Jefferson also asserts that he doesn’t like the fact that there is no rules and regulations in regard to office terms, and how the officers could get re-elected and serve for like, thus, will result with corruption
According to Saul Cornell, the struggle between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist over the constitution is one of the “greatest political struggles in American history”. (Cornell, 2012) From what I gather the men who were called the Anti-Federalist are the real Federalist because they cared about the rights of the people and wanted to protect them from an all-powerful government and give more power to the states to care for their own people. They believed that citizens should be included in decisions and that when they weren’t included into decision making procedures the government would become detached from their citizens. (Borowiak, 2007).
The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of
Under this new culmination of fundamental principles, the push for the establishment of a strong and centralized governing force was determined (Boundless). One of the most notable shifts suggested by the Constitution, supported by the Federalist group, was a limit placed on the power of the individual state as well as the placement of a Senate to provide fair representation of each state’s interests and beliefs. They argued that Senate, along with two representatives from each state, justly represented state interests (Goldfield). A large republic was seen as best protection for individual freedoms (Goldfield). When a Bill of Rights was brought to their attention by the opposing group, the Anti Federalist, it was deemed unnecessary as the Federalists felt that their Constitution was a control of the rights of government rather than the people.
Federalists glorified power, specifically government-centered power, they seemed to obsess over the idea of control, because not only did they admire the Government’s authority, but they also supported the opposition of the Bill of Rights, which was meant to give people ineluctable liberties, like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to a trial. Basic rights you would to give to anyone you respected, or simply acknowledged. Anti-Federalists, however, believed in less power from the Government, and more citizen based power, believing that giving people their own “individual liberties” would lead to said person making good decisions with the betterment of the nation in
Therefore, the Anti-Federalists purported a government with a weak central government which was to be used solely for the purpose of foreign affairs, foreign trade, and similar matters while the states would be left to govern their territories and their citizens as they saw best. This form of government would have created a federation of states, similar to the government created by the Articles of Confederation, with a marginal increase in the power of the federal government. The Anti-Federalists believed that any power which was exercised by the federal government would need to be in writing and the criteria whereby the federal government could use these powers would also need to be in writing. This school of thought led to the inclusion of enumerated powers in the Constitution. The desires of the Anti-Federalists, as stated by Gordon Lloyd, were, “… Congress was limited to powers expressly granted, the states qua states were represented equally regardless of the size of their population, and the amending of [the constitution] required the unanimous consent of the state legislatures”
Anti-Federalists wanted the complete opposite of the Federalists. Anti-Federalists were for power of the states and not the government. They believed in the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution wouldn’t defend individual rights. Anti-Federalists such as John Hancock, Patrick Henry and George Mason argued that the Constitution did not include the Bill of Rights and the government had way too much
Anti-Federalists had the opposite reasoning. They were wary
The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.
The author of anti-federalist 17# was Robert Yates (not the serial killer), at the time he was a politician and judge also the oldest of his family. he lived in the state of New York and tried to run for governor. The document yates wrote was just about states that the anti-federalists did not desire a constitution as a result of they felt that it 'd offer the central government an excessive amount of power which it 'd remove all power from the states. "to raise and support armies at pleasure, in addition in peace as in war, and their management over the militia, tend not solely to a consolidation of the govt. , however the destruction of liberty..." a stronger central government would higher shield everybody and is additional for the good
Both documents from both the Federalist document number one and the Anti-Federalists document number one examine what our nation would be like under one central government. These documents are very generalized introductions for their arguments to either created a new constitution, or ratify our existing one. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the United States didn 't use a large, powerful government as we know it today. The nation put most of the power into individual states which created several issues with the overall standing of the U.S. The governing document during this time, the Articles of Confederation, had multiple weaknesses including that there was no tax authority, no chief executive, and no judicial system.