Compare And Contrast Essay About The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

Federalist Paper #51 is written by James Madison and explains how federalism would protect individuals rights. the Anti-Federalist Paper #46 and talks about how the new congress would have not restraints on their powers. James Madison’s Federalist Paper #51 was more persuasive than Anti-Federalist Paper# 46. The Federalist Paper was more persuasive because it states, “The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches”.

To compare and contrast the differences between the Federalists and the Democratic-republicans? Is by the federalists and the democratic-republicans both have people that put rules down too Rule by the wealthy class and Rule by the people but they are a different type of people like the wealthy class and the normal people. Another compare things they both have is that they both have strong governments but Alexander and Thomas had different governments like Alexander had a strong federal government and Thomas had a strong state government. Also, Alexander and Thomas had an alliance but with different people like Alexander had an alliance with British and Thomas had an alliance with the French. But an overall, they both had banks but, they both

George Washington was on the “front lead” of the American Revolution, and it is no surprise he would become the first president of the United States. He ruled in a blank slated government, since there was no precedents of a government detached from the British. During his mandate The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created. While the new government was trying to settle, two groups of people were also starting to be distinguished: The Federalists and the Republicans. George Washington’s vice-president, John Adams (who would succeed him) was a Federalist.

During the ratification of the debate of Constitution of the United States, there were two groups that played a major role during the time. Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution. They were mostly conservative wealthy landowners or former loyalists. Some of the well-known Federalist during this time were George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Anti-Federalists on the other hand opposed the ratification of the constitution, and they were in favor of the Articles of Confederation since it was less government and the states still maintained their sovereignty.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787-1788, there were two fundamental ideological camps attempting to push their plan for the new government. They were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists incorporated the basic chronicled names like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington. The Anti-Federalists did not have the same number of respectable names in their camp; Thomas Jefferson was the significant advocate of Anti-Federalist strategy in early America. Each side had diverse methodologies for the new government.

While the Federalists dominated the government through the 1790s, they rapidly declined after 1800. Thomas Jefferson's election to the presidency was bolstered by Republican victories in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Federalists remained powerful enough to obstruct certain Republican measures for about a decade, but they were not strong enough to prevent the United States from going to war against Britain in 1812, a war which the Federalists vehemently opposed (Shmoop, n.d.) In US history at 1787 until 1788, there were federalist and anti-federalist. Federalist wanted a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution.

Let me start with what Antifederalist are: The Antifederalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. Although less well organized than the Federalists, they also had an impressive group of leaders who were especially prominent in state politics. In the approval debate, the Anti-Federalists conflicted the Constitution. Anti-federalists complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights.

Name: Jeshuwin Prabakaran Before the Constitution was approved and known as the structure of our government, we had the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was a broken system, with no central government to collect taxes or enforce law we were burying ourselves in massive debt while States taxed each other. There was no National Court System or Supreme Court which made serious cases harder to deal with often having a less just outcome. These are the few of the multiple flaws and reasons it was necessary to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

The Federalists created the Constitution we all know today, then called the Federalist Papers, in 1788 to oppose the current Articles of Confederation. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay created The Federalist in New York to publish and introduce the idea of a more centralized government(Federalists, n.d.). Countering the Articles of Confederation and challenging the current government system infuriated the Antifederalists. It infuriated them so much that many of them came together to publish many speeches against adopting the ratification of the Constitution, known as the Anti-Federalist papers. The Anti-Federalist papers were disclosed and private, for everyone involved could get in serious trouble, but Robert Yates, George Clinton, Samuel Bryan, and Richard Henry Lee took the task into their own hands.

Though a small republic can 't resist the mischief of faction, there is a way for a large republic to be able to resist. In small republics the number of people is a low amount, as for large republics the number of people is higher and there is a difference of opinions. The fact that large republics have a more numerous amount of people this means that the factions will be numerous as well and will also be smaller and weaker. Because they have so many different factions it is very easy for the government to just ignore them. It is stated in the handout that Madison is refuting, "the Anti-federalists ' argument that a republic would soon crumble under the pressure of factional divisions."

Emily Watermasysk After the independence of the United States was gained, the debate for an overall power between the colonies began. There were the federalists, and then the opposing side of the anti federalists. The federalist fought for the idea of needing a constitution, and one group that had a majority power over all of the states. While on the other hand the anti federalists believed in state power, and did not support some of the constitutions policies. This could be seen through disagreements from slavery, how much power the states get, and to how the president should be elected.

The American Revolution, a war fought against a distant and all too powerful government, instilled a fear of centralized governmental power in the United States. The idea of the U.S. constitution sparked a political divide; it encouraged heated debates from those who are known as Federalists, and those who are known as Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, individuals who supported the ratification of the constitution, argued that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and that a strong national government with checks and balances was needed. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists argued that the president would be like a king and that there needs to be a Bill of Rights to protect the people. If I had been alive in the time of this intense debate, I would have voted for the federalist side of the argument.

Finally, the New Constitution needed to be ratified but had difficulties being passed. The Federalist, newspapers, were in support of ratification. These areas expressed the importance of the new Constitution. Antifederalist, on the other hand, believed that the Constitution would give too power to the central government while states would have little to none. In the end, anti-federals lost and federalist, those in favor of the new Constitution, added a bill of rights to satisfy anti-federalist.

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Federalists were mostly merchants, bankers manufacturers, and wealthy farm owners. They basically owned land or some type of property and were well-educated. Most of these people lived in urban areas. Anti-Federalists were mostly artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, and poor farmers. They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was in shambles. Having left the rule of the British Crown, the States desired a government far from their previous predecessor. However, having given tremendous power to the states and very little to the federal, there was much chaos. A prime example of the failure of this document was Shay’s Rebellion, when farmers rebelled against government officials for debt that they could not repay due to faults in the Articles. Consequently, a new Constitution had to be ratified which resulted in many compromises between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.