Federalists Vs Anti Federalists

Good 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. Both sides argued that their way was correct. …show more content…
They believed that the Constitution would prevent a monarchy and/or a tyranny. Column 2, box 5 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper states that “The Powers of the national government are separated and balanced…The Constitution gives the Congress and the Supreme Court ways to check the use of power by the executive branch.” This shows that the citizens did not need to fear a monarchy because checks and balances would prevent it. All of the branches would be equal and have ways to keep each other in line. Another argument of the Federalists was that the central government had little power and this power can only be used to help the people. Column 2, box 3 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper says “[the government's] powers are limited to tasks that face the entire nation, such as trade, currency, and defense.” These problems were not addressed in the Articles of Confederation and caused confusion. The Federalists were saying that it was necessary that a central government deals with these powers to keep a …show more content…
They argued that the government would need to use force to keep its people in line, the necessary and proper clause was dangerous and that a bill of rights was necessary. The Anti-Federalists did not believe a national government could exist at that time without military force. They said in column 1, box 2 of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper that “The national government would be located too far from most people’s communities to allow them to participate...the only way the government would be able to rule would be through the use of military force.” This Anti-Federalist quote explains that communication was not good enough to keep everyone informed about elections, laws and national news. The Anti-Federalists were afraid of this since that is not unlike what King George did when he introduced The Quartering Act or closed down boston harbor after the boston tea party. The Anti-Federalists thought that the new government would turn into a tyranny. The Anti-Federalists argued that the necessary and proper clause was too broad. In the first column in the second box of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper it states that “It is dangerous not to list the powers of the government in order to put clear limits on them”. This quote expresses the uncertainty that the Anti-Federalist have with the necessary and proper clause. They think that the government may use this power to do what is

Related Documents

  • 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

    Anti-Federalists fought for a Bill of Rights to be included within the Constitutional framework governing the federal government so as to explicitly codify individual rights under the law. Their skepticism regarding the nature of government recognized state action and the liberties of the individual citizen are typically antithetical in nature and in need of explicit protection. Some Federalists on the other hand were actually fearful of such methods, worrying that explicitly listing the rights of the individual was an inherently limiting approach to liberty – with the idea that those which were not listed were not fundamentally retained by the people. James Madison stated, “[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.” James Madison original position prior to Constitutional ratification and the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution inherently restricted the powers of the national government to those that were clearly defined.…

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 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

    During the ratification debates of the US Constitution, there was conversation over the necessity of a bill of rights to define people’s rights and limit the government’s powers. Many federalists believed such a bill of rights would not only be unnecessary, but would weaken the constitution and the people, and give the government powers they should have. Noah Webster, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson each make arguments against a bill of rights. Webster argues that a bill of rights may be irrelevant in future generations, but people will be reluctant to change or add to it. Hamilton believes that the bill of rights is unnecessary because the constitution itself is in terms a bill of rights.…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    While the anti federalists only focus on what they do not like about the current government. The anti federalists fail to realize that the legislature of the federal government cooperate together from different branches that they created themselves. Each branch of the federal government check the other to make sure only the most important and efficient laws actually pass. The judicial branch checks and makes sure that laws are interpreted the way they are supposed to. This branch does not work to cooperate with the other branches to take over the United States and gain complete control of everyone inside the country.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 1295 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Reserve Clause suggests that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited by the federal government are reserved for the states of the people. This strict interpretation would restrain the powers of the government. The drawback of strict interpretation is that there could be circumstances in which something that needed to be done, couldn’t be done without a Constitutional amendment. This can be a problem because it is not easy to amend the Constitution, and this can be a problem when there is an urgent matter that cannot wait for an amendment to be passed. Eventually the Republicans loosen their interpretation of the Constitution and become increasingly more…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In 1787, the Continental Congress was brought together in the Philadelphia Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was written and since people had different views on how to interpret it, two political parties were eventually formed: The federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The main reason for the rise of political parties during the 1790s was because each of the parties favored different political and economical reforms needed as a new, developing country. Alexander Hamilton led the Federalists and they favored a loose interpretation of the Constitution, while Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party favored strict interpretation. The Federalists wanted to create a national economy by creating…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers. I support a support a system within the government that allows only for each branch to review and be responsible for their own decisions. The Constitution does allow for one branch to check up on the actions of another, however to allow the judges to simply have the full perspective not only for themselves but for all the other branches as well, I fear will lead to a judicial despotism that will be damaging to us…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 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