The Conflict Between Federalists and Anti-Federalists

In: Historical Events

Submitted By buhr02
Words 1128
Pages 5
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 lose their sovereignty and independent government. The local Politian’s believed the political power they enjoyed would be stripped upon the ratification of the constitution.
The Federalists believed the articles of confederation which were the first attempt to unite the country into a continental nation had failed. Federalists believe ratification of the constitution would unite the states into a…...

Similar Documents

Federalist Articles

...constitution, expresses discontent with the constitution in his speech, by openly saying he sees fault with some of the parts but is quick to say that,they were his own opinion. He blames old age and luck of knowledge of current affairs(of the time).He however urges all men present to agree and give support to the constitution as he sees it necessary for the running of the government and blessing to the nation if well administered.I personally applaud Franklin for being brave and courageous not only because of voicing his opinions but of knowing, one’s truth aspect is not necessarily the same as of all other’s. This reminds me my readings of The Pursuit of Truth(from six great ideas) Mortimer Adler (1997) where he says truth is an alignment between mind and reality and that we cannot argue and win over each individuals perception or taste of truth. He strongly agrees that the unification and assembly of men of wisdom to draft the constitution is good,as Thomas Paine(1776) pointed out in Common Sense ,it is better than monachical system where the monarch sets all rules and regulations. Franklin goes on to say “much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its governers” (Franklin,1787). Most philosophers including John Locke and Thomas Jefferson emphasized government should be centered on......

Words: 2742 - Pages: 11

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

...a bill of rights through the amendment process.¨ “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety.“ There is no need in having the rights written when the constitution is already preventing the government from the power to violate those rights. “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” The constitution is a system created to the country will be more organized its purpose was not to create a monarchy again just like the one in England. “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John ... It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” The purpose to ratify the Constitution was to resolve the problems created under the Articles of Confederation, to créate a better government, one that was not too weak but......

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 - Us Gov Honors

...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......

Words: 1075 - Pages: 5

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

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

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

Federalist or Antifederalist

...Choose whether to argue as a Federalist or as an Anti-Federalist. Review the lesson to make sure you understand their main points. Using quotes from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, write an opinion article for a newspaper, or create a speech podcast to convince people in your state to agree with your position. Include the following in your speech or article: teens shaking hands after playing a game of tennis © 2012 Polka Dot/Thinkstock introductory paragraph that clearly states your position as a Federalist or Anti-Federalist at least two paragraphs describing differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist points of view. Use at least two quotes from each of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. If you would like to explore more of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers to find your own quotes, these sites will be helpful. Federalist Papers American Studies at the University of Virginia The Avalon Project at Yale Law School The Law Center at the University of Oklahoma Anti-Federalist Papers Document Library by Teaching American History at least one paragraph to explain why you disagree with the opposing stance. For example, if you have chosen to argue as a Federalist, you will explain why you disagree with the Anti-Federalist position, using quotes from the documents to support your argument. strong concluding paragraph that summarizes your argument and encourage others to support you Your argument should be......

Words: 382 - 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

Clinique | APEXEL (1) | Richard Widmark