Federalists Vs Antifederalist Analysis

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. Antifederalists believed such little …show more content…
One objection Mason lay was in the lack of an advisory council elected by the States through the House of Representatives. He believed this lack of an elected council would lead to poor advice and misconduct from a collection of minions or allow the president to be susceptible to the influence of the Senate. Antifederalist also believed the council would have prevented further blending of the branches. Mason stated the council would have eliminated the “unnecessary officer of the Vice-President…[that] [is ]dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers.” (EA pg. 17). Antifederalists also disputed the President’s power to grant pardons because he could hide crimes he may have commissioned. They criticized the executives blended power in regards to treaties “ The Executive and the Senate, [have] an exclusive power of legislation which might have been avoided by proper distinction” (EA pg. …show more content…
Federalists worked together to convince the people that a strong union was the best form of government to preserve liberty and peace. The Union will provide “[A] barrier against domestic faction and insurrection” (FP pg. 37). Creating a unified nation in their view diluted the power of majority factions, created a concert among nations to prevent insurrection and increased the likelihood of electing enlighten men to serve in office. Federalists countered historical and philosophical claims against large republics by maintaining the science had improved since the petty republics of Greece and Italy. Hamilton asserted the Constitution provided many protections against tyranny in its structure. “[The] [science] has received great improvement… distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges, holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature, by deputies of their own election…” (FP pg. 38). Federalists argued the structure prevented abuse of power by dividing it amongst three separate branches, but also by forcing the branches to check one another’s ambitions, forcing them to work

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Founding Fathers Journal Constitution: By all means, I did not support the decision made to ratify the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution does not completely serve as beneficial for the people. This national government imposed in the Constitution does not serve to protect the liberties of the people. A government so strong can only seek to control the people in the states’. I oppose the Constitution because it will risk the sovereignty of the states’.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays
  • Superior 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
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They viewed it as an attempt to keep them out of politics and from voting, because they could not criticize the Federalists in any way (Hewitt and Lawson 231). They thought that the Federalists had too much power and were too elite, but their free speech was taken away and they could not do much about it. In the Virginia Resolution, a response the Sedition Act, James Madison talked about how the power the government was exercising was not only not granted by the constitution, but was also “expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto” (James Madison 283). Essentially, the government went against their own constitution that allowed freedom of speech by making it things illegal. They also opposed the Sedition Act because it demonstrated “the political welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power” (Matthew Lyon 283).…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    His veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill is perhaps of most prominence, and indicative of the extend of his other vetoes (Smith 15). The bill would “establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees” ("Law Creating the Freedmen 's Bureau"). In his veto of the bill, Johnson claims that “ the bill before me contains provisions which, in my opinion, are not warranted by the Constitution and are not well suited to accomplish the end in view” ("Veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill"). He goes on to say that the bill offered the Bureau too much power, and that its land provisions were redundant given that the Constitution itself protected people to such measures. Lastly, he felt that the use of military, which was permitted by the bill, during a peacetime was inappropriate (Smith 15).…

    • 1047 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Louis XVI was not the ideal king people imagined when they imagined a king. A king was expected to be strong, for a strong king meant a strong government. But instead King Louis XVI is described as the opposite of a strong ruler based on characteristics such as how he “lacked self-confidence and depended on others for advice on how to rule” (qtd. in Nardo). The people saw him as weak and unable to handle a country.…

    • 1202 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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).…

    • 746 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
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays