Preview

Anti Federalism Dbq

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
819 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Anti Federalism Dbq
The federalist called for a strong central government, a federal bank and an army. They proposed a new constitution, while the Anti-federalist wanted to remain under the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-federalist planned for the almost unavoidable corruption of a powerful central government. They wanted true federalism, a much better plan for our country long term. The federalist believed that the current system of government could be improved. Strengthening the central government would help protect the government from tyranny. Federalist No. 51 stated, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place …show more content…
under the Articles of Confederation, just edit it a little. They wanted the states to hold the supreme power rather than the national government. Most feared that the constitution would turn our government into a monarchy. Brutus I made the statement, “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ The name Anti-federalist is actually misleading, they were actually more for federalism than the federalist, as they wanted the power more separated to the states. Their thoughts were that a government under the constitution would lead to corruption as the power hungry federal government would become corrupt and try to consolidate all of the power.“In the new Constitution, the President and Senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances, (as making all kinds of treaties, which are to be the laws of the land,) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They, jointly, appoint all officers, civil and military; and they (the Senate) try all impeachments, either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves.“ -Richard Henry …show more content…
It may not sound very American to say, but the constitution has it’s flaws. The checks and balances of the federal government are only as strong as the integrity of the officials in the three branches. A group with similar ideas can take over all three and make deals amongst themselves. The state governments need more power to keep a check on the National government.Another issue with a strong centra government is that people in different states have vastly different beleifs and ideologies, and many of them even if held by an entire state, may not make it to the federal government. Richard Henry Lee said “In this congressional legislature, a bare majority of votes can enact commercial laws; so that the representatives of the seven Northern States, as they will have a majority, can, by law, create the most oppressive monopoly upon the five Southern States, whose circumstances and productions are essentially different from those of theirs, although not a single man of these voters are the representatives of, or amenable to, the people of the Southern States.“ And that was just with differences in opinion between the limited number of states that existed them. Now, with 50 states and an ever rising population, there are more differences than ever. A stronger state government would result in more diversity between states, laws more fitting to the beliefs of individual states opinion. Then the small federal government would make sure that these

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In 1787 when the Constitution was created it caused many people to start a grand debate. Of course, there were people that supported the constitution and people that were afraid of the constitution. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists created documents that are within the Constitution that have shaped United States political parties. The Federalists supported a strong central government because the Articles of Confederation didn’t have strong national power, and was very restrictive.A reason why The Federalist wanted to change the constitution was to add people’s opinion into the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists supported a strong state government because they believed that a strong national government would cause a monarch and they were afraid of who will have the power.…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Document A Federalism it answers the question of why did the constitution guard against tyranny they guard against to portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments They divided state/national into something that both governments wouldn’t have too much power. Central government and state are the two pieces that make up Madison's compound government. Central government has powers needed to run the nation, and state government has important local powers.…

    • 630 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The evolution of the United States can be seen over a specific time period. Between 1970 and 1930 the form of government was known as layer cake federalism or dual federalism. There were clear powers divided between the states and the centre and there was sovereignty given in equal measure to both. Between the years 1930 and 1960 the structure was known as Cooperative federalism or marble cake federalism where the state and the central government shared functions and collaborated on issues of national importance and priorities. The 1960s to 1980s were known as picket fence federalism and was characterized by high and overloaded cooperation and regulations which were not only interfering between the powers of the centre and…

    • 828 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    "A free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants......as that of the whole United States." (Brutus I) First of all, anti-federalists thought that a republic must be small and uniform to survive. The United States was a large country that had 1200 miles long and 200 miles inland, and it also had big population which had wide range of religions and races. They thought if a national government had a strong power that would insulate from the people and would abuse the power to deprive the powers belonged to the states. For instance, the legislature of the U.S had great and uncontroulable powers: the Congress would tax heavily from the states and regulate the inter-states trade; the Supreme Court would overrule state courts; and the president would come to raise and support large armies. Brutus noted Article I, Sec. 8 implied powers "the necessary and proper." It meant that the states reserved certain powers, and considerable powers could be added. Also, a strong central government would threaten the rights of common people. Because the Constitution was created by…

    • 1009 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    U.S Constitution DBQ

    • 1101 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The writing of the U.S Constitution generated many concerns over the amount of power to be allowed in the Federal Government. Political parties of Federalists and Antifederalists formed, sparking debate over the issue. As Federalists supported the proposed U.S Constitution, Antifederalists supported the government formed under the Articles of Confederation. Federalists felt that a strong central government would give protection to public and private credit. Many large landowners, judges, lawyers, leading clergymen, political figures, and merchants were in favor of ratifying the U.S Constitution. James Madison writes in Federalist Papers #10, “Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and public of personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable” (Doc. A). Congressmen such as Madison strongly supported a stronger Federal Government. The existing government under the Articles of Confederation needed to be altered to ensure more control over the states. Federalists believed that if change wasn’t made the nation would fail. “Either the…

    • 1101 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The anti-federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson. They believed the Constitution alone did not protect the rights of the people. They later added the Bill of Rights to…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The federalists were mostly developed by high-class wealthy merchants, bankers, manufactures or professional men from New England and the Atlantic Seaboard, along with farmers and Southern planters. They admired the English aristocracy. Federalists considered the common people ignorant and incapable of self-government. They desired high voting qualifications claiming that unfettered democracy was anarchy. They favored a broad interpretation of the constitution to strengthen the central government at the expense of the state’s rights and wanted an expanding bureaucracy.…

    • 312 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Federalist and Antifederalist had different ideas and beliefs of the nation’s government. Antifederalist believed in more power for the states and did not agree with a strong central government. They preferred the Articles of Confederation. Antifederalist did not want to ratify the Constitution due the fact there was no bill of rights and there was too much power in the national Constitution and not the States. On the other hand, Federalist believed in a more centralized national government. Federalist propose the separation of powers, which the act of vesting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government in separate bodies.…

    • 261 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    “In The Federalist No. 51...James Madison wrote in defense of a proposed national constitution that would establish a structure of checks and balances between the different departments of the government and, as a result, constrain the government’s oppression of the public” (R. Higgs). James Madison advocated for a strong federal government rather than weak government with a strong state government. A strong federal allowed the states to be united with the sacrifice of being government by a powerful few. Anti federalists argued this was similar to the monarchy they had just escaped. Federalists also wanted to ratify the Constitution to protect the rights of the people by constraining the powers of each of the government branches. (Levine and…

    • 493 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A collection of essays called, The Federalist, were published in 1787 and 1788 and basically supported the ratification of the constitution and the idea of a national authority without the fear of tyranny in the new government. The anti-federalists responded to this with what they considered to be the dangers of a more powerful central government.…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Anti-Federalists have their reasons & the Federalists have theirs. I’m against the idea of a central government and how the freedom of the states should be.…

    • 288 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Federalist’s structure of government is superior to that of the Anti-Federalists because we have a better idea of how the government should be run. The Anti-Federalist’s want to include so many things that we do not need like a bill of rights, and a set number of representatives from each state.…

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Dbq Anti Federalists

    • 477 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Anti-Federalist had concerns almost immediately after its release. One of the concerns was how much power would be held by Congress. There was a clause in the Constitution that allowed Congress to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into ongoing powers. The Anti-Federalists often argued that this would allow the national government to create any law it wished. Importantly they did not want laws that would be harmful and unrepresentative for the people. In addition, the Constitution contained a supremacy clause that recognized the national government as the final arbiter of its disputes for the state which did not seem to be a fair option for the Anti-Federalists. This clause caused the anti-Federalists to believe that states and their citizens would be at the mercy of the national…

    • 477 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Their main concerns included the power that the government held and the natural rights that the people could have. The Constitution was thought to be “radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished… The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press … are rendered insecure” (Henry 1). Not only were they afraid of falling into another monarchy, they also believed that the rights of each man would be terminated after the Constitution is put into effect. Anti-federalists doubted the effect of the Constitution in the future due to their stances on natural rights for the people and the control that the national government had over the…

    • 271 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Finally, the federalists protected all the things that they gave to the people. They maintained the army and made sure also that they had a militia that was ready to defend the country when the time called for it. The anti-federalists tried to do the same, but they were not able to get rid of the threats of the Indians on the western and southern fronts. Finally, at the end of the war of 1812, when the federalists were still in power, the Indians were all either conquered or they signed treaties that allied them with the Americans. In this way, the federalists were able to better protect the people. Another few points that prove that the federalists were superior to the anti-federalists are that the federalists were successful in their attempt to rule the country and to keep it running, while the anti-federalists failed, and they were able to draw up a constitution that lasted for a very extended length of time. This meant overall that the federalists had a more lasting effect on the way that our country was run, and in this way displayed the kind of strong, long-lasting government that would be worthy of the title "City on a Hill". In conclusion, the ways that the federalists were superior to the…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays