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

  • Improved Essays

    The Federalist papers played a crucial role in helping to quell the fears of Americans who didn’t want another King George III. In Federalist number 45, James Madison reassures Americans that the federal government was not given too much power, and that if the federal government became too strong or tyrannical, the states would be able to mitigate any effects (Madison 1788). Madison also states that the federal government is necessary for the prosperity of the people (Madison 1788). He claims that the powers of the federal government will not be dangerous to its people, for which he gives a few reasons. First of all, Madison argues that the federal government’s powers are few and specific, whereas the state powers are broad and unlimited.…

    • 1095 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    During the summer of 1787, representatives from each of the thirteen colonial states, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, two starkly contrasting groups of state delegates, had gathered to discuss a new Constitution to replace the failed Articles of Confederation. Namely, the delegates had debated as to whether or not the new ruleset should have taken effect, as they possessed highly dissimilar viewpoints regarding the Constitution. There were several Anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution’s ratification, alongside numerous counterarguments by the Federalists in its support. Specifically, the Anti-Federalists had been primarily concerned with the federal and state governments of the United States, fearing tyranny and excessive…

    • 1556 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The United States constitution was signed and approved by the constitutional convention delegates in 1787, and it needed ratification from nine states as it is required in article VII of the constitution before it could be enforced. States that decided not to ratify the constitution will be considered a different country, and not part of the union. With this knowledge, the urge of the ratification led to a conflict among the delegates that resulted in numerous documents, essays, pamphlets, and articles. The conflict; perhaps debate consists of two opposing sides; the Federalists who wanted the ratification of the constitution, and the Anti-Federalists objected to the ratification. The Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton were in favor of…

    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    After Shay’s Rebellion proved that the Articles of Confederation were ineffective and unable to manage the states and it’s people. It was evident that a new form of government needed to be crafted. But what kind of government and how should it operate? These were the types of questions that the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist grappled with and argued over, for many years. The Anti-Federalists and the Federalists both took inspiration from men like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.…

    • 1225 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved 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.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Gage Lozano Perception Recently gaining independence from Great Britain was a notable achievement for the new country of America, but a great divide in the thoughts and actions that would determine the fate of the government became increasingly uneasy. Two opposing ways of thinking evolved and battled for how we would establish our country: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. While both seemingly concerned for the well being of the country, the predominant factor that separates Anti-Federalist Mery Otis Warren from Federalist James Madison is the perception they had over the citizens in their relation to the government. James Madison was concerned with the stability a republic could provide, while Mery Otis Warren wanted to ensure that the government was small, secure, and did not become to powerful or aristocratic. Raised by a wealthy family and very well educated, James Madison easily became a dominant figure in politics.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    At the Philadelphia Convention, the federalist constitution was opposed by some representatives of the state because they felt it limited the power of the states. They believed that it gave too much power to the central government. Some arguments that were made for in favor of the federalist constitution was that a central government would better protect the rights of the American people. The Supremacy clause stated “that the national government's authority prevails over any conflicting state or local government’s claims” (Morone & Kersh 118) was self evident in proving the fact that the central government, although permitting states reserved powers, would have more power than the states. The changes from Dual Federalism to New Federalism…

    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The idea that one government could express the opinions or understand the will of the people could not be exercised by a government so large. This argument was an attempt to keep governmental control at the state level, where the people were closest to those that represented them. Additionally, Antifederalist’s believed a United States of its current size managed from one central government to be improbable and with the growth potential of the young nation, adequate representation would be nearly impossible without unmanageable numbers of…

    • 1064 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The federalists supported the idea of stronger power concentrated at the federal government. They believed in a strong central government that would rule the people of the United States directly, have great power and control almost all issues within the country. They perceived it as the most effective way to keep order and to protect citizens’ rights. The idea of weak central government and different sets of rules for every state seemed to them disastrous as the nation would not be united and people’s right can be easily infringed. Anti-federalist ideas of running the country were extremely different.…

    • 764 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Some of America’s finest minds got together for the Philadelphia convention to figure out which form of government would be best. The Federalists were formed by Alexander Hamilton and its other well-known members were Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, George Washington, and James Madison. Federalists desired a secure central government and feeble state governments, preferred the Constitution to aid the amount owed and stress of the American Revolution, were against the Bill of Rights, and were supported in large urban areas. Meanwhile, the Anti-federalists were composed by Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Richard Lee, George Mason, and Mercy Warren. Anti-federalists insisted that power in the states not in the central government, picked the Articles…

    • 390 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the argument about the ratification of the United States Constitution, both the supporters and the opponents had substantial reasoning for their viewpoints. However, these groups differentiated greatly on what problems were most significant to their arguments. Each group came up with smaller “subgroups” of issues they had with the Constitution or Articles of Confederation. The supporting group of the Constitution was the Federalists, who believed in a strong central government that would better protect and support the new upcoming nation.…

    • 993 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Anti Federalists Essay

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Two of the major leaders of this group were Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who was overseas during this time. The Anti-Federalists thought that under the Articles people had the rights that they rightfully deserved. Under the Articles, the poor people benefitted greatly. During the process of trying to get the new Constitution ratified the Anti-Federalists felt that under this new government the rich had all of the power instead of the people (Doc 5). Under the Articles the states had the power to make laws and do whatever they pleased, and to some of the states the idea of changing to a government that the central government had all the power was absolutely absurd.…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalism Although the meaning of federalism has fundamentally changed over time, Anti-federalists of the time have generally been contented on the issue of the Constitution as a direct result of the Bill of Rights. Throughout the major change from the states’ rights approach to federalism to the approach of competitive federalism, that still serves us well to this day. New brands of federalism have emerged, directly influenced by major social or economic events throughout the history of federalism, and while “the US Constitution specifies exclusive and concurrent powers for the national and state governments. Other powers are implied and determined by day-to-day politics” (Paletz, Owen and Cook 91).…

    • 652 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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. By reading them, we learn that the Anti-Federalist did not think the new Constitution accurately explained the rights of its…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays