Differences And Similarities Between The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

The anti federalist in the other hand wanted more rights for the states they believed in a strong state and a very minimalist federal government, they focused on the bill of rights whereas the federalist focused on the

The debate was during the ratification of the Constitution. The anti-federalists believed that it gave too much power to the federal government. While both sides agreed that something different from the Articles of Confederation had to be created, many were uncomfortable with how far the Constitution went, and worried that the states would lose their sovereignty. The Federalists supported the Constitution, because they believed that the nation could only succeed with a strong national government.

The differences between the federalists and the anti-federalists is the federalists like a central government while the anti-federalists like a small weak government. The constitutional convention was held and the federalists wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation while the anti-federalists

The Federalists were a group of people that wanted a national government to be all as one instead of states having their own government. The anti-federalists were the ones that disagreed with having a national government. They thought that the select state should have power over itself in everything they did. The Federalist Party was an important part of

The Anti-Federalists wanted the people to elect their representatives, because they believed that it would allow a sense of security for the people since the congress already had so much power over them. The people repeatedly told the state legislature that they would never submit to an authority that is not elected by themselves. They had the idea that the state legislature would elect subservient to their own desires, not the people's. If the elected representatives are representing the people, then the people should choose who they want to be represented by. The Federalists, on the other hand, wanted the state legislature to elect representatives because they believed that “politicians should elect politicians.”

Let me start with what Antifederalist are: The Antifederalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. Although less well organized than the Federalists, they also had an impressive group of leaders who were especially prominent in state politics. In the approval debate, the Anti-Federalists conflicted the Constitution. Anti-federalists complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights.

This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.

Federalists would be favorable towards the power that the president and all branches of government have today. Likewise, the Antifederalists would be happy about the Amendments within the Constitution and the way Checks and Balances control the power in the government(Anti-Federalists, n.d.). The executive branch of the United States

“Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” The title of the article is “The Antifederalists were right” it was written on Sept. 27, 2006 by Gary Galles. The article was about the reasons why antifederalists were right. The Federalists wanted a strong central government.

That’s a huge difference between these two parties except they both created systems in order to ensure the government couldn’t possess too much power. The federalists created checks and balances which split the powers of the government equally therefore no one party had too much overbearing powers. Federalists created this to ensure the government couldn’t become tyrannous. On the other hand the Anti-Federalists fought for a bill of rights therefore ensuring their rights couldn’t be robbed by a tyrannous government. Both sides were scared to trust a government after the strict British rule while one was more willing to make a new government than the other.

Anti-Federalists wanted the complete opposite of the Federalists. Anti-Federalists were for power of the states and not the government. They believed in the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution wouldn’t defend individual rights. Anti-Federalists such as John Hancock, Patrick Henry and George Mason argued that the Constitution did not include the Bill of Rights and the government had way too much

Federalists and Antifederalists When the Constitution was written in 1787 and submitted to the states for ratification, it set off months of fierce debate. There were many people who agreed with ratifying the Constitution and welcomed it as a stronger and more effective federal government that could successfully unite the 13 states together into one nation. These people were known as federalists. But others opposed ratifying the Constitution because they were afraid the proposed federal government was too powerful and wouldn’t protect the rights of the people. These people were known as antifederalists.

Emily Watermasysk After the independence of the United States was gained, the debate for an overall power between the colonies began. There were the federalists, and then the opposing side of the anti federalists. The federalist fought for the idea of needing a constitution, and one group that had a majority power over all of the states. While on the other hand the anti federalists believed in state power, and did not support some of the constitutions policies. This could be seen through disagreements from slavery, how much power the states get, and to how the president should be elected.

The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views in the Constitution because of their differences; but they also had many similarities that ended up leading to the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists and Federalist had many similarities. Both were supportive of this new country and knew that they needed a government. They both wanted the congress to have power to create war and to create treaties.