Compare And Contrast Democratic-Republicans And Anti-Federalists

Improved Essays
Federalists from the pre-Constitutional era remained Federalists, while Jeffersonians named themselves Democratic-Republican. President Washington warned about the dangers of political parties because they would divide the government and the nation into sides. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson led their parties, the Federalist and the Democratic-Republic respectively. As Washington had predicted, the nation was divided between two points of views, but political parties allow people to choose a side upon matters of supporting different ideas. Although Democratic-Republicans favored the common man, Federalists appeared more appealing because they favored the elite and the educated, prefered a strong federal government, and applied a loose construction of the Constitution. When selecting a person to represent the people in the …show more content…
Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, opposed the Constitution, arguing that it will destroy the unalienable rights of man. Federalists interpreted the Constitution with a loose construction, meaning that the government should be allowed to exercise many implied powers for the public good (Hamilton). The National Bank, created by Hamilton, was an example of implementing a loose construction because the Constitution did not specifically mentioned whether the government was allowed to do so. The National Bank provided a safe place for people to deposit money and loans for the states and the government to pay off debts. Democratic-Republicans believed that those implied powers belong to the states or to the people to decide whether laws should be made to prohibit something (Jefferson). The state governments can provide laws that the federal government did not, but those laws are exclusive to the certain states. The federal government still the power to override the state's legislations if the laws affect other

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this. Hamilton wanted to form a national government to help them get out of debt resulting from the American Revolution, he planned to borrow money from European banks then pay it back. He believed our national government had to be strong enough in order to defend ourselves. Jefferson completely disagreed with Hamilton’s ideas of government. Jefferson wanted to accomplish a small, weak government that is not to powerful.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    State governments will make it too difficult to maintain the national government, they are bias, and Americans should have a firm union in this new nation. Overall, he was completely against state governments. He favored a strong federal government made of many wealthy members. Moreover, Hamilton held a loose interpretation of the Constitution. He even supported sometimes restrictions on speech and press under certain circumstances.…

    • 1205 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Pure democracy had no cure for the mischiefs of factionalism. Madison argued the problem comes from majority factions gaining popular sovereignty, and using that power to prevent minority factions from participating in gaining power. Madison makes an argument in favor of a larger republic and more centralized government as a way to prevent strong factions. The Federalists believed that the more centralized government would protect individual liberties, and ensure that no faction become too…

    • 1457 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    With respect to the federal Constitution, the Jeffersonian Republicans are usually characterized as strict constructionists who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the Federalists. To what extent was this characterization of the two parties accurate during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison? As war wages on in Europe, economic and political influence is spreading to America. As the President’s, Jefferson and Madison are challenged by upholding their country’s honor and putting their beliefs into action. However ideas change along with time and the Presidents may have to alter their beliefs to keep the nation stable.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    He does not believe that the collection of taxes is necessary because it was not specifically stated in the Constitution. Jefferson’s point of view is that he thinks that the Federalists are making claims that are not in the Constitution and he thinks their power is useless. “…Cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government…” (Document C). In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he claimed that the government should try its best to not develop political parties. He warned that overtime it would hurt the government because they would not be able to make decisions.…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Final EXAM Part II: C Antifederalists vs Federalists Debate Tyranny and the New Constitution Antifederalists like George Mason’s objected to the new Constitution based upon their fear that the National Government would hold too much power and become tyrannical. The main objection that most Antifederalists shared was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights to protect the rights of citizens. Mason argued that since the national laws held supremacy to that of the State laws the “declarations of rights in separate states [were] no security” (EA pg. 16). In addition his confidence in the new system’s structure was stifled in part due to the shadow of representation bestowed in the House of Representatives.…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Partisan Politics occurs when one political party does not agree with another political party and is unwilling to compromise his political beliefs. The year 1790 was the birth year of partisan politics in the United States just as Washington’s presidency was coming to a close. The two factions emerging would be the Federalists in support of Alexander Hamilton and those opposing were the Democratic-Republicans that were led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Federalists believed in a strong central government that centered around the rich and elite, along with a need for economic growth. The Republicans believed that a strong central government would only oppress or restrict the rights of citizens.…

    • 686 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The legislative branch has the power to control tax and money, while the executive branch can make law and control the army. It would be overpowered if they would give them the power to overturn the unconstitutional federal law. It’s unfair to give the legislature judicial review. Each branch should have their power. No other branches act will go against the constitution is acceptable.…

    • 612 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays