during this time there was a great divide between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists the Anti-federalists opposed the the constitution, they believed the president and government have too much power. The federalists supported a strong central government and believed the state should not have more power than central government. The farmers wanted to a stronger federal government because they were already broke and under the Articles of Confederation the economic problems were only getting worse. So by creating the constitution this allowed most farmers to live without struggle, the constitution didn’t really hurt anyone because it helped economically, gave us a better judiciary system and also made voting…
Unfortunately at first this motion was defeated after a brief discussion. Following the Philadelphia Convention some leaders during the revolution publicly opposed the Constitution, this became known as “Anti-Federalism”. The opposed because they believed if the National Government became too strong it would also be a threat to individual rights and the President would gain too much. When advocating the Bill of Rights, Jefferson wrote to Madison: “Half a loaf is better than no bread.…
They feared that that original text from the Constitution didn’t contain a bill of rights. The Federalist thought the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights and they thought that the nation would possibly not survive without the passage from the Constitution. They also said that a stronger national government was required since the Articles of Confederation failed for not having a strong enough national…
It didn't make sense for the National Government to have more power leaving the states weak. They also believed that the power among the three branches was not equally divided. The Anti-Federalist were more for the people, more of which were farmers and small landowners. More and more the Anti-Federalist believed that the Federalist were more interested in a aristocratic society which would be at the expense of the commoners of the colonies. Now the way the Federalist won over the ratification of the Constitution was that James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton wrote The Federalist Papers which helped convinced some people to ratify the Constitution.…
The anti-federalist thought that this new document would have all the same characteristics of Great Britain the country they had fought so hard to extract themselves from and others feared that this new government threatened their personal liberties. The Anti-Federalist demanded a document that protected states rights and individual rights and eventually the Federalist made The Bill Of Rights. I am standing here today signing the ratification of the constitution because of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists making this…
The Anti-Federalists argued that a stronger national government must be accompanied by explicit safeguards against tyranny. The Anti-Federalists supported states’ rights. 20. What were the Federalists Papers and why were they so critical to ratification of the Constitution?…
Anti-Federalists feared a powerful government would oppress the people. They argued that the new constitution was too much like the powerful British Monarchy. Anti-federalist thought the power should remain with the states and local governments.…
It brought up leadership, economical and legislative issues. In conjunction with the issues it brought up, it also began to cause issues with citizens and political leaders. The Anti-Federalist party who wanted a weak central government, had strong opinions as to why they believed it was wrong for America. On the other-hand, Federalists believed a stronger central government was the best choice for the country. In the end, the Articles of Confederation were and replaced with the Constitution to satisfy both parties as much as they could.…
The federalist of the Constitution were the people who supported it. The anti-federalist were those who went against it. Federalist thought that the Constitution was based on federalism. The anti-federalist believed that the Constitution took too much power away from the states and did not insured rights for the people. The federalists even wrote essays to answer the anti-federalist attacks to the Constitution.…
Two groups that played a key role were Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists believed in having a strong central government, whereas Anti-Federalists waned the majority of the power given to the people and were wary of the government having too much control. These groups are similar to Authoritarians and Libertarians of today’s society, respectively. In fact, these group’s differing beliefs sparked one of the disagreements surrounding the Constitution, “One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government.…
It was agreed upon in the Constitution that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Jefferson). By stating this it was absolute that those who were in a position of power are there because the people they over-see. Some of the men behind the support for the Constitution were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Although the Federalist strongly supported this change there were many disagreements from the Anti-Federalist group. The main argument came from those who believed this new Constitution would strengthen government at the expense of its people and independent states.…
The Anti-Federalist felt greatly upset by the Federalist ratification of the Constitution, which had shifted state power into federal hands, while the Federalists wished to keep a Bill of Rights out of the Constitution, because they believed that they could not list each right, and that the rights unstated would be broken and abused. The Federalists eventually won the ratification of the Constitution in large part because they set up the ratification process in a way that would be favorable to them. They had new conventions which were held in states that were favorable to their position first, and they required only 9 of the 13 states to ratify, although the Articles of Confederation had clearly stated that all 13 states would be required in order to agree to any amendments to the…
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.…
Other people felt as if the new Constitution had no separation of powers. They felt as if the branches had too much power and there was nothing keeping one branch from becoming too powerful (Doc 2). The Anti-Federalists did not want to be in the same kind of government they fought so hard to get away from. The Anti-Federalists were also frustrated with the fact that the new Constitution laid out all the rules, but did not list any rights the people had. So Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified.…
This would allow for the government to do things that aren't listed within the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were opposed to this. They wanted a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Some examples of Anti-Federalists are George Mason and John Hancock. Anti-Federalists by definition are a political party that wanted the power of the individual state to be greater than the power of the central government, and a strict interpretation of the constitution promoted this.…