Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

Adopted by Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, The Articles of Confederation served as the United States Constitution and was in effect from March 1, 1781 to 1789 when the current Constitution took effect. The Articles of Confederation was a written document that entailed the position and function of the national government after the United States declared its independence from Great Britain. It established a weak central government that mostly prevented individual states from conducting their own foreign diplomacy. Until its ratification in 1789, it served as the first constitution of the United States. The Articles had more weaknesses than strengths.

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 believed in a strong central government to show strength and power, but the anti-federalists believed in giving the states more power from the constitution. In reality, though, the anti-federalists had a more strong compelling

The Articles of confederation was ratified during the American Revolution and established a one house body of delegates, with each state having a single vote. It was also the first written Constitution in America and set an example of what not to do in future constitutions. Today, the Articles are commonly thought to have a poor framework and a weak central government. Because of this, there were many controversies that came from it. Many people disagreed with it, but there were also people who strongly agreed with it.

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

Disagreements about the appropriate framework for government were predominantly featured between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The Federalists proposed that America needed a constitution that promoted a stronger central government that also gave powers to the subnational governments of the states. According to them, this would create a more unified nation that would facilitate law and order. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists opposed the idea of having a stronger central government due to the perpetual fear that a central government could potentially expand its power and eventually take all the powers from the states. They wanted to avoid this kind of government as much as possible, as it reminded them of their experiences under the unitary British

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).

2). Whereas The Anti-Federalists movement was led by Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Samuel Adams in which they strived to create a strong executive similar to a monarchy in which there were fewer limitations on popular participation. Then we had the Federalists, which consisted of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,and John Jay. Together they created and strived for a set of beliefs that checks and balances could protect against abuse, ultimate protection of property rights, and stressed the weakness of articles; indicating that a strong government was needed to protect the nation and solve domestic

The anti-federalists saw that the Bill of rights as very necessary, and federalists thought that the constitution was perfect the way it

There are two types of people who are against the Constitution. you were either a federalist or an anti-federalist. Federalists were people who supported the Constitution so examples would be James Madison Alexander Hamilton George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. They believed individual rights were protected by state constitutions. if you were an anti-federalist you didn't agree with the Constitution you opposed the ratification of the Constitution.

During the time before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the country was split into two factions. The Federalists, who drafted the Constitution, thought that the limited power of state government and limited individual rights to the people was the best form of government. And the Anti-Federalist, who believed that the strong federal government, as drafted in the Constitution,would strip people of their personal liberties and state governments of their sovereignty. Although the Constitution was ratified, if it wasn’t for compromises from both sides we might still be governed by the Articles of Confederation.

For the Federalists this meant that they would abide by the law and abide by what was written on the Constitution for they believed everything that was written on it. In the other case with the Anti-Federalists this meant that they did not believe anything written on the Constitution and did not abide by any of the laws that were written there, (for they did not believe the constitution), that's why they created the bill of rights. The second difference between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is the fact that Federalists wanted power in the states but the Anti-Federalists wanted power in the central government. This meant because the Federalists wanted power in the states that everyone would have equal say and it would not be equal. For the Anti-Federalists, believing that the power should go to the central government meant that the people would not have a say in voting and it would all just be biased and that is not fair nor right and it is not

Anti-Federalists, however, wanted to stay with the British monarchy. At the time, there was a lot of animosity between the government and the people, and this viewpoint only added fuel to the fire. In a monarchy, the people are essentially given no say. Anti-federalists were scared that a strong central government would take away their rights and freedom.

For many people, we don’t really talk about this topic often, or at all depending on the person, so none of us really know the difference(s) between the two. Federalists believe that all power is controlled by the national government. They prefer that a single person lead the executive branch and they believed that the Constitution didn’t need the Bill of Rights. However, they are in the wrong. In my opinion, the anti-federalists aren’t as strong-minded as the federalists would be in the government, they would have better control in the direction they wanted their government to go: either have a tyrant rule and control the entire United States, or let the people have a say in what they want in a government and have the government actually take

The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective