The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

The anti-federalist wanted to improve the equality in the government this is clear with this quote "As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety". The anti-federalist believed that the constitution needs the bill of rights to protect people individual rights. The federalist were a strong central government .They wanted a strong leader and they wanted the separation of powers as stated in the federalist quote. "It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.

On the other hand, Cornell explains that this “will of the people” was often contorted on both sides as political debate. Thus, the “dissenting tradition” was not more than who was more qualified to run the government through countless debates and public appeal. As explained by Cornell,”Each side expended enormous energy crafting appeals to persuade citizens that it was better qualified to represent the will of the people” (Cornell 21). Thus, the Anti-Federalists were using the people to debate themselves in the public sphere to gain the will of the common man and avoid the evil corrupt centralized authority.

Federalists and Anti- Federalists had different view points on how they wanted to run their governments. Federalists wanted a strong central government. They wanted the Constitution to be ratified right away, with no changes. Federalists wanted the powers of state to be given central government. They wanted the government to be divided into three branches.

The anti-federalists feared a strong government because it posed a threat to the people rights and that the president could be a king. I find that the federalist camp more appealing because they realized the weakness of the Confederation and tried to improve it such as the Judicial court system. There was no system of courts in the national government, the courts were dependent on the other states. This also made it that the states can ignore the national law without any consequences because the Congress has no way to enforce its own law. But the constitution helps the Congress to establish a national court system.

Federalists supported the constituion and wanted a strong elected government. They believed that a powerful national government was needed so that the nation would be protected and to address domestic issues. Federalists also believed that the Constitution should be allowed to place limitations on the powers of each branch of government. So therefore, Checks and Balances

The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

It 's never good for a new country to fight over its very foundation. In the USA’s case the foundation was the constitution, and the disagreement was over how to interpret the document. The amendments and code of conduct are listed in the constitution so this dispute was for the better of the country. The Federalists believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution.

The new constitution couldn’t please everyone. Some people liked it but some didn't. The two sides were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were in favor of ratifying the Constitution, whereas the Anti-Federalists were opposed to it. They would have debates about ratifying the Constitution.

When it came to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists the differences are many and at times very complex, due to the beliefs that the Federalists are nationalist at heart. The Federalists had an incredibly big role in shaping the new Constitution, which the Federalists used to create a stronger Constitution at great cost to the Anti-Federalists. If you ask the Anti-Federalists They believe that should be a ratification of the US Constitution in every state. But due to the Anti-Federalists being poor at organizing they really didn’t gain any ground. Although they didn’t achieve their goals of ratification of the US Constitution, but they did force the first congress under a new Constitution along with the bill of rights.

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

Represented by Alexander Hamlton, they favored the constitution and were against the bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists feared/preferred a weak central government. They were represented by Thomas Jefferson, they favored the articles of confederation and were for the bill of rights. The warnings from the Anti-Federalists about the constitution were right. They warned the Federalists about the consequences of undelegated power becoming abused.

Following the Revolutionary War, America had just gained independance from Great Britain and needed to form a new government. The Articles of Confederation were established as an attempt to create a government that was unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. When in the process of repairing those weaknesses, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists formed. The Articles of Confederation were very weak as well as useless to America and because of this, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists could not agree on a new type of government.

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.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists both wanted almost completely different things when it came to the power of the national government. The Federalists believed in the national government having almost all control, while the Anti-Federalists wanted most of the power to be in the hands of the states and people. They both decided on the Bill of Rights, where they decided that the power had to be fairly distributed among the states and people and the national government. The Elastic clause and the General Welfare clause were two features of the original Constitution that led to growth in power of the national government.

In the late 18th century, America’s founding fathers would have never dreamed of being organized into different political factions: for they were not fans of them. In Federalist 10, James Madison, leading Democratic-Republican thinker, stated that he was skeptical of factions. In his Farewell Address, George Washington, the first President of the United States, warned the American public against the egotistic political factions. Both Madison and Washington believed that factions were signs of corruption. Despite the public warnings against factions, two political parties emerged from our founding fathers: the Federalists, and the Democratic-Republicans.