The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

In 1787, the New America had won her independence from England, yet a vacuum had been created which forced the need to form a new governmental system. This system would allow the people to rule themselves as well as protect their new nation from others. In response, two ideas of government were formed among the people. One group called themselves the Federalist who saw a need for a strong national government and the other group was called the Anti-Federalist who preferred for each state to rule and govern itself. As Brown and Shi state, a “fierce political debate that ensued, advocates of the new Constitution assumed the name Federalists. Opponents, who favored a more decentralized federal system, became anti-Federalists” (Brown and Shi 199). …show more content…
For example, the people had just fought to escape the unjust ruling of the Europeans and felt that they their rights would be better represented in each state rather than a centralized government. Furthermore, because of the Anti-Federalists pressure on the formation of the government, a bill of rights was formed “to protect the rights of individuals and states” (Brown and Shi 200) and as the Lehrman Institute states, “their great success was in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a bill of rights (Lehrman). This shows that both side were valuable. However, I side with the Federalist view of government as the only possible means to protect the country; and as Gordon Lloyd says, this “lead to the concentration of power in the new government” (Lloyd). In other words, the county became stronger with a centralized government. I believe the United States is better together. Both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists were needed to form the Constitution of the United States, yet as the Federalists insisted, the New America needed a new form of government that allowed all people to be represented