Forming this new country was a tough process. There were several different ideas. After realizing that the country was too weak under the Articles of Confederation. In result, there came a new idea; which was to ratify the Constitution. The procedures for ratifying the new Constitution were as controversial as its contents. This is where the fight to ratify the constitution began. The Anti-Federalists had many central arguments against the adoption of the Constitution. The proponents, the Federalist proposed a better argument for defending the ratification of the new Constitution which caused them to prevail.
The Anti-Federalist were those men who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. The Federalists were those who favored a strong national government and supported the ratification of the constitution proposed at the American constitutional Convention of 1787. The Federalist supported a federal union- a loose, decentralized system. The Second Continental Congress declared that they need 9 out of the 13 colonies to pass the new Constitution. The Federalists proposed a better argument for defending the ratification of the constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists feel that the new Constitution will hurt the state governments.
The Federalists consisted of leaders such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington. They were property owners, creditors, and merchants. They believed that elites were the most fit to govern; feared “excessive democracy.” (Ginseberg, Lowi, and Weir 60). They favored a strong national government; believed in “filtration” so that only elites would obtain governmental power.
The Federalists response was that a heterogeneous republic will be better at protecting liberty rather than a small homogeneous republic. They also argued that only a large republic can prevent majority tyranny. Majority tyranny is prevented by increasing the number of interests (factions) in society. (Ginseberg,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document