Anti-Federalists - Us Gov Honors

In: Historical Events

Submitted By destaneejudah
Words 1075
Pages 5
The Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the constitution. The only reason the Anti-Federalists agreed to help ratify the constitution was because of the Bill of Rights and without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been ratified. Ranging from political nobilities like James Winthrop in Massachusetts, to Melancton Smith of New York, and Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia, these Antifederalist were joined by a large number of ordinary Americans particularly commoner farmers who predominated rural America. In spite of the diversity that characterized the Anti-federalist opposition, they did share a solid core view of American politics. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power until its tyranny like rule completely dominated the people. Having just succeeded in rejecting what they saw as the tyranny of British power, certain threats were seen as a very crucial part of political life. The differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists are vast and at times complex. The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the US Constitution, but they never organized efficiently across all thirteen states, and had to fight the ratification at every state convention. Their great success was in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a Bill of Rights, to ensure the liberties the Anti-Federalists felt the Constitution violated. "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in…...

Similar Documents

Gov Notes

...Compromise was where the framers decided to count a slave as three-fifths of a person when determining the population of a State. * The Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise was where Congress was forbidden from taxing exported goods, and was not allowed to act on the slave trade for 20 years. * The Constitution was very controversial at first, with some groups supporting it, and others attacking it. * Federalists thought that the Articles of Confederation were weak, and argued for the ratification of the Constitution. * Anti-Federalist objected to the Constitution for many reasons, including the strong central government and the lack of a bill of rights. * Nine States ratified the Constitution by June 21, 1788, but the new government needed the ratification of the large States of New York and Virginia. * Great debates were held in both States, with Virginia ratifying the Constitution June 25, 1788. * New York’s ratification was hard fought. Supporters of the Constitution published a series of essays known as The Federalist. * The new Congress met for the first time on March 4, 1789. * Congress finally attained a quorum (majority) on April 6 and counted the electoral votes. Congress found that George Washington had been unanimously elected President. He was inaugurated on April 30. * Common features of State Constitutions include popular sovereignty, limited government, civil rights/liberties, and separation......

Words: 3152 - Pages: 13

Anti Federalists Versus Federalists

...Pros-Federalists ♥ Supporters of the Constitution that were led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. They firmly believed the national government should be strong. They didn't want the Bill of Rights because they felt citizens' rights were already well protected by the Constitution. ♥ Felt that there should be three independent branches each representing a different aspect of the people, and because they are equal one cannot overpower the other. ♥ The more organized party. ♥ The party that wanted the constitution to be ratified and it was! ♥ Federalist vision of the country supported the belief that a National Government based on the Articles of the Confederation was inadequate to support an ever growing and expanding nation. ♥ Federalists were made up of the wealthy and elite plantation owners and businessmen. ♥ The Federalists believed the articles of confederation which were the first attempt to unite the country into a continental nation had failed ♥ Cons-Anti Federalists ♥ Thought Congress held too much power. ♥ Did not like it that there was no bill of rights. ♥ Opponents of a strong central government who campaigned against the ratification of the Constitution in favor of a confederation of independent states ♥ Believe Executive Branch held too much power. ♥ Did not want the constitution Ratified ♥ Did not get their way. ♥ Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution and formation of a National Government would lead to a......

Words: 324 - Pages: 2

2.03 the Anti-Federalists

...FEDERALISTS The federalists wanted and believed in a central government that’s slip into branches and ran by the people. They really wanted a government that was strong and for the people. The anti-federalists wanted to stay under the control of the British in a monarchy government. The federalists wanted the constitution ratified just as it was immediately. FEDERALISTS vs. ANTI-FEDERALISTS The federalists and the anti-federalists had two totally different views on hot the U.S should be governed. They both had their own ideas of what they thought would help make our county better. The federalists believed and wanted a strong federal government, an army and a central bank. With our country in mind they felt that our country should be ran by the people. Stated by the federalist no.39 “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion of a favored class of it; otherwise handful of tyrannical nobles exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers might aspire the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable tittle of republic.” The federalists believed in separating the government into branches so that the government could be kept under control. Also, stated by the federalists no. 51 “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and constituted that the members of the others.. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the......

Words: 667 - Pages: 3

02.03 the Anti-Federalists: Assessment

...02.03 The Anti-Federalists: Assessment When I say Anti, you say Federalist, Anti-Federalist! Anti-Federalist!! The debate between federalists and anti-federalists was very intense during the time the constitution was ratified. The reason why I consider myself a member of the Anti-federalist party is due to the fact that I agree with their main purpose, which was States ’ Right. I believe the rights and powers should be held by individual rather than by the Federal government. How would our country be like without these rights in the first place? Chaotic Right?! Federalists believed in a stronger centralized government, was led by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Two quotes from the Federalist papers would be. “We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.” And “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Also the Federalist Party supported the Virginia plan Anti-Federalists believed in strong states’ rights wanted a weak federal government that would not threaten states’ rights was led by Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. Although the name does not mean that they were federalism, they were against a strong central government. "It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive......

Words: 473 - Pages: 2

2.03 the Anti Federalists

...To Ratify or Nor? That is a question being asked over the centuries, and the answers have been the cause of serious controversies. Just like the founding fathers debated what was best for the country, by ratifying a Constutution. Today people still debate whether it was right or not to ratify the Constitution. What do you think? Today people have been able to see the benefits of having a constitution and it was proved many years ago when the Articles of Confederation did not work that a stronger central power was the solution to a better government. Of course a central power that would have checks and balances, there would not be any advantages of taking over the government. Many debates are being made, the antifederalists say the constitution is bringing a central government with too much power. “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ But even though the constitution gives a certain amount of power to the central government it still created a method of checks and balances to prevent a future dictatorship. Also it is known all the troubles that the country went through by giving supreme power to the states. And the constitution still makes clear the states rights. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great......

Words: 639 - Pages: 3

Federalist and Anit-Federalist

...power to coin money and back it up with previous standard, and no money to raise an army or navy. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. They argued that the document would give the country an entirely new form of government. They saw no sense in throwing out the existing government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country. The Anti-Federalists feared that the Constitution gave the president too much power and that the proposed Congress would be too higher-class in nature; with too few representatives for too many people. They also criticized the Constitution for its lack of a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists also shared the feeling that so large a country as the United States could not possibly be controlled by one national government. Although the Anti-Federalists were united in their opposition to the Constitution, they did not agree on what form of government made the best alternative to it. Some still believed that the Articles of Confederation could be amended in such a way that they would provide a workable confederation. Some wanted the Union to break up and re-form into three or four different confederations. Others were even ready to accept the Constitution if it were amended in such a way that the rights of citizens and states would be more fully protected. The Federalists focused their arguments on the lack of the quality in national government under the Articles of......

Words: 489 - Pages: 2

Federalist

...FEDERALIST The Federalist Party was in favor of the newly formed constitution. One of the main objects of the federal constitution is to secure the union and in addition include any other states that would arise as a part of the union. The federal constitution would also set its aim on improving the organization of the union. Which would include improvements on toads and interior navigation. The Federalists believed that each state should find an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection. Americans were very suspicious of the government, but the Anti-Federalist was very distrustful of the government in general and strong national government. The mistrust was the foundation of their opposition to the constitution. The Anti-Federalist argued that the constitution had many flaws. Anti-Federalists feared that because of the flaws in the constitution, that the new national government would be a threat to their national rights. They also thought that the constitution had been developed by a privileged group to create a national government for the purpose of serving its own selfish interest. They thought the only safe government that if it had a local and closely linked with the will of the people, as we have yearly elections and replacing people in key positions. The Federalist knew that many members of Congress and the state governments were against the new constitution, because it reduced their powers. So the Federalists decided not to ask the......

Words: 283 - Pages: 2

Anti-Federalist

...Lovince I am a supporter of the anti-federalist party. The anti-federalist took some of the ideas that the federalist had into consideration. Instead of abolishing or ignoring these ideas, they wanted to improve them. The anti-federalist and the federalist share two very opposing views. As you read this essay, you will gradually start to see just how my ideas are being supported as to why I've chosen to become an anti-federalist. The anti-federalist party was the first out of two political parties of the U.S. This party was led by Henry, George Mason and Samuel Adams alongside Richard Henry Lee who wanted the president and the senate to have the entire executive and 2/3 of the legislative power. As an anti-federalist, I believe that the constitution should not be ratified. I feel like the best way, that the U.S citizens should be protected is by being kept safe from the Government and the bill of rights will do that because of the freedom and liberty that it gives us. "The greatest importance for Freemen to retain themselves are the liberties given to us in the bill of rights", which is why it's so important that we'd add it to the constitution. In order to get the bill of rights to be in the constitution we'd need to sacrifice part of our natural rights, for the good of others around us. The anti-federalist believed that the constitution should have a bill of rights. The Anti-federalist opposed the constitution, while the federalist themselves favored it. The......

Words: 836 - Pages: 4

Anti-Federalists

...03 The Anti-federalists My position as a federalist is to ratificate the constitution while also creating a strong central government by separation of both of the powers combined. All the federalists were always strong believers in the constitution, believing that this ratification was the only way they were all able to achieve a fair society where all people can all have their rights to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, while also wanting to help shape future analysis of the Constitution for the better and in beneficial ways. By them being able to build a sufficient government with the foundation of the basis of popular sovereignty, without the need of sacrificing any sovereignty of the varied states fairness of the new government, it can be secured and work as it should. The rich would be happy in this case, because they would feel like the new Constitution was benefcial on their part, because the fact that rich's votes would earn much more value than the less fortunate in the states like what they wanted to achieve. They can possibly keep the potential of tyranny from becoming something dangerous to their people and they know that safeguards they have with the government will keep it from overpowering. The constitution should be ratified as a Federalist because the nation might of never survived without the constitution by their side leading them and a stronger government was necessary at this very point in desperate time. The federalists......

Words: 875 - Pages: 4

1.02 Speech Us Gov Hon.

...criminal law enforcements combined. Others, though, believe that the bill must be passed no matter how much it costs. Yes the population will increase drastically, but that does not stop them from fighting for its passing. The simply passing of the bill will not be enough for an immigrant to become citizen, though. In order to be accepted, one must; have been present in the United States before December 31st, 2011, have remained present until day of application for citizenship, paid all required taxes and fees, not a convicted criminal, and not present in the US in a lawful, nonimmigrant status. Even once meeting all said requirements, the process still takes years to complete. A person must renew their RPI status after the first six years in order to stay, then after ten years of being in the RPI status, is allowed to apply for a green card. Finally, after three years of having a green card, they can apply to become US citizens. It’s a long and hard battle that people must fight in order to be Americans, but for most, it’s one worth fighting for. If they meet the requirements, they should be allowed to become citizens. The United States of America is a country where people from all over the world reside, all the way from Europe to Asia, Australia to South America, and everything in between. It’s a country where everyone everywhere can come and enjoy, and create a better future. It’s the twenty-first century. People should not be denied the right to make a better life......

Words: 956 - Pages: 4

Federalist V Anti

...living somewhere safe and economically secure. And when it comes to who should be the one in charge of making big changes or passing law, it should be someone that really knows about politics and the economy, someone that will not be biased. And that would be federalist; they are true politicians, people who truly have the knowledge to direct Florida and all the other states to a better place with a strong central government in charge. I see it like this you don’t want a garbage man that has no knowledge as your doctor, you want someone that has knowledge in that field, it’s the same with politics. John Adam stated that “government is instituted for the common good; for the perfection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of man….” Federalist were business men, and wanted a central government because of equality they wanted the states to all have the same right not one be more powerful because of their size or any other quality. By Adams saying this he also was saying that sometimes people want to lead to have an advantage and for their own good, but by having a central government that wouldn’t happen. Anti-federalist believed that anyone could be a representative but if you really think about it that incorrect because people that really don’t know about politics could say something is right but only see it in the point of view that it would help them and not really......

Words: 394 - Pages: 2

The Conflict Between Federalists and Anti-Federalists

...The Conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists The Conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists While the anti-Federalists believed the Constitution and formation of a National Government would lead to a monarchy or aristocracy, the Federalists vision of the country supported the belief that a National Government based on the Articles of the Confederation was inadequate to support an ever growing and expanding nation. After the constitution was signed the next step was ratification by a least nine states. Ratification by the states was by no means a fore gone conclusion in 1887. Any state not ratifying the constitution would be considered a separate country. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very different opinions on what kind of government should be formed. The Anti-Federalists were made up mostly of farmers and tradesman, common people working to support their families. The Federalists were made up of the wealthy and elite plantation owners and businessmen. In an effort to make their argument the Anti-Federalists used rhetoric from the Revolutionary War to stress the merits of state and local government. The Anti-federalists also characterized a national or central government as a step away from democratic goals, fought for during the Revolutionary War and a step towards monarchy or aristocracy rule (Net Industries, 2009). Anti-Federalists believed individual state rights should be protect and if the constitution was ratified states would......

Words: 1128 - Pages: 5

2.03 Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

...The federalist structure of government is the one that is best for this nation. Federalists wanted to make a change; a change for the people. They want an established government that is ruled or governed by the people, unlike the Anti-Federalists who wanted to keep the same monarchy government and didn’t seek a change for the people. A monarchy has proven to be corrupt because only the higher-class had the right to power and the lower-class had no say. For this reason, the Federalists wanted to separate the powers of the government into their own branches in order to avoid a corrupt government. Because of this, Federalism would be the best option for this country. Federalists strongly desired a government for the people. They also wanted the constitution to be ratified as quickly as possible with the use of editing. Federalists also believed that some power should be taken out of the states and put into the government, and that the government should be respectfully separated into three branches. Federalist paper no. 39 states: “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of the republicans and claim for their governments the honorable title of republic.” By separating the government into different branches, the Federalists has the idea......

Words: 615 - Pages: 3

2.03 Anti Federalist

...Federalism In a monarchy, the people have no say in the government, while the anti-federalists wanted to keep our government as it is. They both are most likely alike. This would cause chaos and hostility amongst the citizens of the nation. The federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted some of the state powers for itself. Also, the supported the division of the government into three branches Anti-Federalist and Federalist The federalist were for the people and not just in favor for the ruling class. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. Stated in the federalist paper in No.3 "it is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." The federalist also wanted to separate the powers of the government into different branches so that the government could be kept under control. The Anti-federalists wanted to stay with the British government. The British was a monarchy at the time. It would be a corrupt government since only the rich could have a say in the government but the poor couldn't. The united states did not approve of it. " And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws,......

Words: 458 - Pages: 2

Anti Federalist vs. Federalist

...Both Federalists and Anti-Federalist was both established from Washington’s cabinet. Jefferson who was an anti-federalist, was the secretary of state and hamilton, who was a federalist, was the secretary of the treasury. both parties thought presidents should be voted in by the public, (white males to specific). they based their ideas from the Enlightenment. Overall, they both wanted to keep the liberties of the people protected and wanted representative government. it is important to understand the two opposing view because the two groups untimely forged our nation, and they also created the basic of today two party political system. Opposing Views Federalists Anti-Federalist they were the supporters of a larger national government. they were a group of people that opposed the ratification of the proposed constitution in 1787. Federalists felt like the Bill of Rights addition was not necessary, because they believe that the constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. propose and supported the Bill of Rights addition because they claimed the constitution gave the central government too much power, and without the bill of rights the people would be at risk of oppression. felt that the states were free agents that should manage their own revenue and spend their money as they say fit. felt that many individual and different fiscal and monetary policies led to economic struggles and national weakness. favored dividing the power among different......

Words: 380 - Pages: 2

Dunkirk.1958.COMPLETE.BLURAY... | Bakemonogatari | Dragon Ball – Bảy Viên Ngọc Rồng chap 370