Ratification Debate Anti-Federalists Vs. 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 Federalist 10 was produced on November 22, 1787 and was written by James Madison. James Madison was the 4th President of The United States and is the author of the Federalist 10. Madison wrote the Federalist 10 to directly defend the ratification of the Constitution and in it he mainly focuses on factions and why we need them. Factions are groups of people with different opinions and even though they seem bad, Madison proved that we need them. In the Federalist 10 he states that there are two ways to remove faction one

The Constitution was to be ratified by a special ratifying convention instead of the state legislature. The people fought hard for ratification of the Constitution for a long time. Those who supported the ratification were called Federalists, and those who opposed it were called Anti-Federalists. The Federalists went against the Articles of Confederation, whereas the Anti-Federalists supported a House of Representative which consisted of substantive power. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, whom are all Federalists, wrote The Federalist Papers - a series of essays.

They needed to debate in each state to decide if the state was voting for or against the Constitution and the new government. The Anti-Federalists thought the new Constitution gave the Federal government too much power over the states. They believed that Congress was given an absurd amount of power as well. Anti-Federalists figured the powers of the branches wouldn’t be separated well.

Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. 
On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.

There are a few trends that can be seen about Anti-Federalists, as there are surrounding any political group. As seen in a map depicting where the majority of Anti-Federalists and Federalists were, it is seen that most of the Anti-Federalists lived in the South, large states, or both (Document 4). Ultimately, this is saying that states with large populations (be it due to the slave population or the actual area of the state) were in favor of a governing body stating that the federal government would stay out of the states’ ways and let them control matters as they arise. Another opposition that Anti-Federalists had towards the Constitution is the lack of protection over Americans. Anti-Federalist George Bryan spoke out and said “what security does the Constitution of the several states afford the liberty of the press and other invaluable personal rights, not provided for by the new plan” (Document 2)?

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

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views about the U.S. Constitution and how the government should have been organized. While the Federalists sought after a stronger national government and wanted to ratify the Constitution “as is”; the Anti-Federalists favored a stronger state government and a weaker national government. When the U.S. Constitution was presented to the Anti-Federalists, they were not necessarily against the U.S. Constitution, however, they wanted to incorporate a couple of additions to ensure that the national government would not gain too much power over the people. Due to the discourse between the two, they came up with a compromise and added the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was

They believed that the Constitution gave the government too much power and if the government had too much power then they would be back to where they started with the same monarchy as Britain. The Anti-Federalist lacked the leadership power compared to the Federalists. Some Anti-Federalist included Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry. Anti-Federalists said that the new government would fall because of merchants and creditors. Anti-Federalist who opposed the Constitution believed that the Constitution failed to protect the rights of citizens and threatened liberties.

Supporters of the new Constitution were known as Federalists and the ones that opposed the new Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. Federalists argued that we needed a stronger central government to address the economic and political problems facing the country. While Anti-Federalists argued that the new Central government would be too strong and that it would take away individual liberties. Before the ratification process began there were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay known as the Federalist Papers. They were published in support of the new Constitution, and it helped to sway the public’s opinion in its favor.

The main arguments that were made opposing the ratification of the U.S. constitution are the power and strength that focus too much on to the federal government that will seem to threaten the states. The Anti-Federalists wanted the power to be equally distributed between the federal and the state. In additionally, the Anti-Federalists believe that the new system will threaten liberties and failed to protect the rights of the citizens. Therefore, the Anti-Federalists hope to add a bill of rights

Following the Revolutionary War, America had just gained independance from Great Britain and needed to form a new government. The Articles of Confederation were established as an attempt to create a government that was unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. When in the process of repairing those weaknesses, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists formed. The Articles of Confederation were very weak as well as useless to America and because of this, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists could not agree on a new type of government.

They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views in the Constitution because of their differences; but they also had many similarities that ended up leading to the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists and Federalist had many similarities. Both were supportive of this new country and knew that they needed a government. They both wanted the congress to have power to create war and to create treaties.

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