Anti Federalists Arguments

993 Words 4 Pages
In the argument about the ratification of the United States Constitution, both the supporters and the opponents had substantial reasoning for their viewpoints. However, these groups differentiated greatly on what problems were most significant to their arguments. Each group came up with smaller “subgroups” of issues they had with the Constitution or Articles of Confederation. The supporting group of the Constitution was the Federalists, who believed in a strong central government that would better protect and support the new upcoming nation. On the other hand, the opposing group was the Anti-Federalists, who believed power belonged in the states. The Anti-Federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson and an American politician named Patrick Henry, while the Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and John Adams, all key supporters of George Washington. The main argument the Federalists had with the Articles of …show more content…
The Anti-Federalists had the better argument overall because they had clear instances showing how a strong central government could become corrupt and lose interest in its citizens. They wanted the power to stay in the states because it would allow more control over what was happening within the nation and it would give citizens more protected rights. In the end, after several debates between the groups, they agreed on creating the Bill of Rights, which gave the citizens protected rights. In addition, they agreed on forming one central government that was made up of three branches, all with restricted powers because of the checks and balances between them. On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified by the thirteen states and is still a very important document today symbolizing the start of a new powerful united nation, the United States of

Related Documents