Preview

Federalist vs Anti-Federalist

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
924 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Federalist vs Anti-Federalist
John Adams stated that “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” Federalists believed this, and fought verbal and written battles against the Anti-Federalists, who disagreed with John Adams. Anti-Federalists believed that in an elite democracy, the elite’s would get greedy and selfish, and only worry about themselves. As I’m on the Federalist side, I believe that John Adams was correct in his statement, and that the government is only trying to uphold the rights and liberties that each citizen ought to have. According to Elite Democrats, political representatives “should filter the views of the people through their superior expertise, intelligence and temperament”. Federalists were very intelligent when it came to people’s attitudes and personality. People are very self-centered and egotistical, only looking out for themselves. Having a spokesperson chosen by the people would help them with their problems, and to get their word across. In my opinion, elites who have studied politics in college, and who know the government well are obviously more intelligent than the citizens when it comes to representation. They would have a better understanding of what to do in a situation compared to the people. Anti-Federalists believed that a representative should not “filter out” the people’s requests, but reflect on them exactly as the people asked. I feel this is totally incorrect, because if a person’s opinion is wrong, and it won’t benefit the country, then why should the representative follow through with it. Anti-Federalists are trying to appease the people instead of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    During the 1700’s, the first political parties formed over disagreements in the government. The two parties were the federalists and Antifederalists. Federalists made up the people who felt that the stronger government was better for the country and supported the Constitution. The federalists had felt as if different “fiscal and monetary policies” were a weakness for the national economy. Also, the federalists supported banking("Anti-Federalist vs Federalist"). Federalists wanted to fight for stronger governments, managing the country’s debt and ratification. Antifederalists were people who opposed the Constitution of 1788 and disagreed with a stronger federal government. The Antifederalists wanted to keep the power to be for states and local…

    • 183 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Anti-Federalists believed that a strong state government was needed because if you have a strong central government than the people’s rights will not be ensured. (Doc. 4) Patrick Henry opposed the ratification of The Constitution because he believed that without it containing the Bill of Rights it would not allow the people have their natural rights. Anti-Federalist didn’t want to have a stronger national government because it could destroy the liberties of America that have been won during the Revolutionary…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, had disparate visions about how the country should be administered, which would cause a complication with our founding fathers, who formulated a way to run the country. Federalists assumed to have a forceful central government, central bank. Federalists presumed that in a government, checks and balance works out, so there is no tension between individuals. With Federalists, they remained with the strong central governments, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted to remain with the British government. In the Anti- Federalists, they always thought that the army would cause great destruction. Centinel No 1, states that "The Congress may construe every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes,…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Before the state convention, there is a great issue about liberty. One proponents of the Constitution are federalists who favor to establish a stronger national government; one opponents of the Constitution are anti-federalists who favor to establish a weaker national government. Federalists think only a stronger national government have an ability to keep the states in control. Anti-federalists think the states should have more power than the national government. Even though the conflict between federalist and anti-federalist doesn't stop, whether it is a federalists or anti-federalists, they have the same dream to united the states to become a strong country. The perfect decision is to use the best way to administrate the country and stabilize the society. In my opinion, a stronger national government will keep the country developing.…

    • 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 debates over ratification of the Constitution represent the most important and intellectually sophisticated public debates in American history. On the one side, the supporters of the Constitution, or "Federalists," argued that the nation desperately needed a stronger national government to bring order, stability and unity to its efforts to find its way in an increasingly complicated world. Opponents of the Constitution, or "Antifederalists," countered that the the governments of the states were strong enough to realize the objectives of each state. Any government that diminished the power of the states, as the new Constitution surely promised to do, would also diminish the ability of each state to meet the needs of its citizens. More dramatically, the Antifederalists argued that the new national government, far removed from the people, would be all to quick to compromise their rights and liberties in the name of establishing order and unity.…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good 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

    The federalist were mainly where the person that supported the constitution and was ready to approve it. Imagine living in Florida where it’s a very hot state, with a beautiful beach and many people with unique diversity. The kids running around the park without a care in the world. When you get home from a long day at work and you sit down on your favorite coach waiting for the Golden State Warriors game to come on. You see your friend telling you the warriors might lose against the Washington Wizards. In your head, you know very well this might not be true. Since you like Golden state is your favorite team and it like your home so you felt you should always stay loyal to it or even protect. Well, the Federalist feel closer to their home…

    • 403 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

    We Federalist’s believe that the government needs to be divided into three parts, with equal powers and balances and checks, for it to work effectively. Now the Anti-Federalist’s believe that we are trying to give all power to the larger states in the North and ignore the needs of our brethren the South states. We are not. We are just trying to create a fair government.…

    • 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
  • Good Essays

    The federalist was known as pro nationalist with a strong national government support, where the national and state would have a certain power, but neither would have a supreme authority over the other. They also support the constitution which they abide too with a personal liberty protection. The anti-federalist also called the State right s advocates agree with a strong State rights, pro limited national government by limiting the power of the National Government. These two school of thought had a tremendous influence on liberties.…

    • 440 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    What's the difference between a Federalist and an Anti-federalist? Why did they have different perspectives on the ratification of the Constitution? Republicans and Democrats are not the original political parties. As i'm getting older i will be eligible to vote at the age 18, I will know the difference between the two. The Political parties had changed over the year where now the rules are way different back then.…

    • 69 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    For example, the Federalists were going for the Constitution and they wanted a centralized government. They believed in the Bill of Rights and have two representative from each state. In addition to that, they wanted Congress to have the power over tax and to be able to regulate trade. They wanted the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of people and each branch represented a different part of the people, so all three branches were equal, then there were not specific group could assume control over another group. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution. James Madison argued that, “A dependent on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions” (Scott 112). For the Anti-Federalists, they were going for the Articles of Confederation and they wanted State's Right. They believed that an all power government is abstruse, or difficult to understand. Also, they believed that having a president in a central government would ended up with the people seeing the president as a king. They did not want to ratify the Constitution. When it came to voting, they wanted each state to act as a whole, and have one vote for each state. James Winthrop argued that “To promote the happiness of the people it is necessary that there should be local laws; and it is…

    • 617 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Anti-federalists worried that a strong, central government would override the public good and impose tranny on the people.…

    • 425 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays