Federalist Vs Anti Federalism

Better Essays
The Articles of Confederation attempted to provide structure, and governance to the newly emancipated states. After ratification, numerous problems arose from the setup of the government. This prompted for a revision of the Articles of Confederation. Two groups emerged around the debate for a new constitution. The two groups are the federalist who supported a strong central government, and the anti-federalist who did not. Both groups have distinct ideological differences on how the new document, and government would be structured. The structure between the states and the central government was among the chief problem between the federalists, and the anti-federalist. Many were afraid of the tyranny of the king. The Articles of Confederation …show more content…
A group of three men authored what became known as The Federalist Papers. Authored by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. They were originally published under the pseudonym Publius. The attempt was to convince the states to ratify the new constitution. In disagreement with those that opposed a strong central government, contended that it was necessary. In Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton explains the necessity for ratification. It states “it will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution.” Alexander Hamilton is stating to allow the passage of the new constitution to keep that nation stable, and promote a non-hostile environment. This is a departure from the events that lead up to the Articles of Confederation. In order to do this, Alexander Hamilton along with the other authors of the Federalist Papers, required a strong central government. A new union would need to find the right balance between the powers of the central government, and the state governments. In Federalist 39, James Madison states “each state, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered asa sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.” A central government needed to perform certain functions. It needed to be able to be an actor for other countries. It needed to exert some control with states that were not acting amicably with other states. A fear of the Anti-Federalist was that the central government would be too powerful. As such, wanted a Bill of Rights. The debate on the Bill of Rights was a major conflict in the passing of the new constitution. The Federalist responded, saying that they did not want a

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    As leaders in their parties, Hamilton and Jefferson only served to encourage the partisan divisions. The two members of Washington’s cabinet had different views on government. From as early as the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton was clearly a Federalist and Jefferson was clearly an Anti-Federalist. These philosophical differences between the two only served as a catalyst for their disputes during Washington’s presidency. Fearing that Hamilton’s economic plans would cause tyranny similar to the British rule, Jefferson created the Democratic-Republican Party to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party.…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The main argument came from those who believed this new Constitution would strengthen government at the expense of its people and independent states. Because of the group’s disagreements, they came to write explanations for their position in essay. These essays came to be known as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-federalist Papers. The Federalist papers had a main reason to convey the interpretation to the new constitution. While the Anti-Federalist Papers was pleading those who still secured their rights to allow discussion over the same document.…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    His fears that the government would assert too much power and infringe upon the rights of the people in the United States fueled the measures taken to draft the actual Bill of Rights. The current version of the Constitution alarmed George Mason, and he believed that the U.S. government would soon become corrupt and aristocratic. Also, the Bill of Rights drafted by James Madison was heavily inspired by Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights (“Bill of Rights of the United States of America…

    • 1282 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Federalists vs Anti-Federalists After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the weak Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. It was turned over to the states for approval and for some it brought back fears and memories of King George, while for others it fixed the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Upon completion of it’s writing, a debate was started concerning ratification. Some people believed that the Constitution gave too much power to a central government while others thought it was a great step forward and necessary for the future of the U.S.A. The Federalists were those who were for the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists were those against it.…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Many individuals and states, like North Carolina and Virginia, required amendments to the constitution to support ratification as there was a pervasive distrust of the new government with regards to personal liberties. To the Anti-Federalists, a set of amendments would secure these liberties against a tyrannical government. For instance, Henry Lee of Virginia argued that without amendments to protect personal liberties, the constitution gave congress the ability to do everything they are not forbidden to do. What came to be one of the central issues within the Anti-Federalist argument during the ratification process, allowing for amendments to the constitution was an issue that had carried over from the constitutional convention where Mason, Randolph, and Gerry had argued to allow state ratifying conventions propose amendments. Unfortunately for the Federalists, and probably fortunate for the nation, the debate over amendments did not end at the constitutional…

    • 1064 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    After the American War for Independence, the Americans were under the control of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation set up a weak national government. This system was highly ineffective because the creators of it did not want to restrict the rights of the people as the tyrannical British leaders had in the past. Certain events, such as Shays’ Rebellions, stressed the need for a stronger centralized government. In place of the Articles of Confederation was the US Constitution, the supporters of the Constitution were called the Federalists and the people against it were called the Anti-Federalists.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It became clear soon after the Articles of Confederation were implemented that the document had certain flaws that weakened the newly created United States. A new document, the Constitution, was drafted to replace the Articles. Many people supported the Constitution, but some disagreed with it. Both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists provided valuable insight into the creation of the Constitution. Some of the arguments presented by the anti-Federalists were that it lacked a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee citizens freedoms; that the strong central government would be unable to govern such a large territory; and that the government that was established was too close to the British system they had just overcome.…

    • 1330 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Federalists and Anti-Federalists The feud between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist party was based on the ratification of the Constitution. Even though both groups believed that the principal purpose of government is to secure individual rights and that the best instrument for that purpose is some form of limited republican government. They also agreed that the individual has the right to do anything that the government has no power to keep him from doing. However, they did disagree on the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. The Anti-Federalist party, which was greatly comprised of people that lived in rural areas, were those that opposed the development of a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution of 1788.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays