Anti-Federalists Compare And Contrast Essay

Within the time frame situated around the birth of the Constitution, one particular contention repeatedly came to public notice between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, that is, the greatest question separating the two parties. Is the Constitution in adequate as a result of it not including a bill of rights? Although both parties believed strongly that a preservation of liberties was essential, they still carried very diverse views regarding how strong the central government ought to be. The Constitution is the product of James Madison after many states claimed their wishes for greater constitutional protection over individual rights and liberties. Anti-federalists believed that, unlike the Constitution, a bill of rights would set certain restrictions on the federal government's power. The Anti-Federalist party made the point that it was absolutely necessary that a bill of rights be included in the Constitution to ensure and safeguard the rights of the people. Contrastingly, the Federalist party argued that the constitution itself was enough. Their reasoning came from the fact that the states kept their own powers, which were separate …show more content…
The primary argument of the Anti-Federalists was based on the idea of limited government, which could be accomplished in a few ways. Firstly, the Anti-Federalists did not agree on a form of government but they did agree that the federal government should not grow. They argued that, with a larger national government, the liberties and freedoms of each individual would be placed at a greater risk, because a large government could not manage,due to time, the local issues of each state while also managing the greater issues at hand. It was also believed that a republican government could not have power over such a large society, because in history, only smaller governments were able to hold steady