AJ Siciliano, Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalists Essay
Before the ratification of the constitution, two original political parties fell consistent during the 1700’s, Federalists and Antifederalists. In shorter terms, Federalists wanted a stronger central government to have overall power of the states, rather the Antifederalists wanted something similar to the Articles of Confederation, where the states as individuals, had more power than the central government. Both, although strongly contrasting, contained one main similarity, thirst for the creation of a new country, just with different ideas of how it should function.
At the time, the government was run under the Articles of Confederation, supported mainly by Antifederalists. The Articles …show more content…
Fifty Federalists, with the same general idea of creating a stronger central government, all got together to draw up an entirely new charter, the modern day Constitution. Many debates occurred within the forming of this document, mainly revolving around slaves and specifications regarding the executive powers. The two main opposing members regarding the executive powers was Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton wanted a single man to be elected for life for executive power. The main argument against this was if one man was in charge, the government would be far too similar to a monarchy. In defence to this Hamilton enforced the idea that if the office holder was deemed irresponsible, removal from office would be supported. Jefferson was in complete opposition to this, as he stated if one man was to be put in executive order, trouble was destined to occur. He believed that the executive power should consist of a single man and his office, to allow for the regulation of the single man. The conclusion drawn was a split between both Hamilton’s views and Jefferson’s views, “a single executive of limited …show more content…
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. For example, the creation of a national bank would not be sufficient, as it was not stated within the Constitution. Generally speaking the Federalists had stronger support for the Constitution because they created it. Alongside this, the Anti-Federalists pledged for lower taxes, as most of them were farmers from the south. In comparison most Federalists were generally buisiness men from the north. One of the key differences between the two was the idea of a Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed that the Constitution covered the natural rights given to a citizen, while the Anti-Federalists believed that the creation of a Bill of Rights was necessary to protect the individual rights of the
Before the ratification of the constitution, two original political parties fell consistent during the 1700’s, Federalists and Antifederalists. In shorter terms, Federalists wanted a stronger central government to have overall power of the states, rather the Antifederalists wanted something similar to the Articles of Confederation, where the states as individuals, had more power than the central government. Both, although strongly contrasting, contained one main similarity, thirst for the creation of a new country, just with different ideas of how it should function.
At the time, the government was run under the Articles of Confederation, supported mainly by Antifederalists. The Articles …show more content…
Fifty Federalists, with the same general idea of creating a stronger central government, all got together to draw up an entirely new charter, the modern day Constitution. Many debates occurred within the forming of this document, mainly revolving around slaves and specifications regarding the executive powers. The two main opposing members regarding the executive powers was Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton wanted a single man to be elected for life for executive power. The main argument against this was if one man was in charge, the government would be far too similar to a monarchy. In defence to this Hamilton enforced the idea that if the office holder was deemed irresponsible, removal from office would be supported. Jefferson was in complete opposition to this, as he stated if one man was to be put in executive order, trouble was destined to occur. He believed that the executive power should consist of a single man and his office, to allow for the regulation of the single man. The conclusion drawn was a split between both Hamilton’s views and Jefferson’s views, “a single executive of limited …show more content…
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. For example, the creation of a national bank would not be sufficient, as it was not stated within the Constitution. Generally speaking the Federalists had stronger support for the Constitution because they created it. Alongside this, the Anti-Federalists pledged for lower taxes, as most of them were farmers from the south. In comparison most Federalists were generally buisiness men from the north. One of the key differences between the two was the idea of a Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed that the Constitution covered the natural rights given to a citizen, while the Anti-Federalists believed that the creation of a Bill of Rights was necessary to protect the individual rights of the