Federalists Argumentative Analysis

After to Constitution was written and signed by the framers there was a requirement of nine states necessary to ratify it as the supreme law of the land. This led to there being a divide in the newly formed country between two groups. The Federalists who supported the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists who were opposed to its ratification (O’Connor, Sabato, & Yanus, 2015). Both groups had valid arguments and concerns with regards to the ratification of the United States Constitution.
There were differences in opinion on many topics contained within the Constitution. One of the main arguments was the creation of a strong national government. The Federalists believed that the strong national government was required as shown in the Federalist …show more content…
I agree with the Federalists point of view on certain topics such as the need for a strong national government to ensure that the states remained united as a nation which allowed America to become the great and powerful nation that is has become. Without a strong national government there is a good possibility that the states would have had many more issues like the Civil War. However, at the same time the Anti-Federalists have a very valid point about the power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution and the lack of the Bill of Rights. I believe that I would not have been able to consider myself a Federalist prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights because there needs to be a written and legally binding document that states the inalienable rights that are given to the people. The basic principle that this nation was founded on was the liberty and to be a government for the people and by the people. To ensure that the people were not oppressed by a tyrannical government their rights needed to be protected within the Constitution and the document also needed to limit the power of the national government to prevent becoming the type of government that had just granted our nations