The development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies during the late 1700’s. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties aroused at the formation and ratification of the Constitution. Both sides pointed out many arguments in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The main conflict between the two parties revolved around the amount of power and control that the states and national government would obtain. As I am on the Federalist side, I support and agree to ratify the Constitution. For this will give America a second chance to fix what the Articles of Confederation could not achieve and unite all the thirteen colonies to end the boundaries and corruption in the government.

The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, was in favor of ratifying the newly written and modified Constitution. The United States was free of British control after the American Revolution. Their first official attempt on having a formal government was a document called Articles of Confederation. Though that ultimately failed due to no taxation, no faith and interest from the government officials and gave too much power to the states. The newly formed Constitution proposed a strong central government and unite the whole colonies together. In that way, they could raise their own money through taxes, fund and direct a national army and deal with territory that was not part of the current states. The weak and unfavorable points of the Articles of Confederation appointed.

There should also be a consideration on facing a threat of invasion by France or England. The Constitution would be able to keep all the states unites instead of frustratedly trying to fight them off again. With the Constitution ratified and in place, the national government would have a better standing in the world. Also the power, in the country will be distributed by Congress, with Senators and House of Representatives. The stated reasons above

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The Different Views of the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist on Human Nature The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist had very conflicting views on several things; however, they did have some similar views on topics such as on human nature and how it affected government. Other common interest of the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist was the preservation of liberty and government. They both believed that there were things that men were destined to do that can not be prevented; because of…

    • 557 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Federalists believed in a strong central government. They supported the Constitution, central banking and financial policies as a way to cure the economy. They wished to depend on the nation, rather than the state, to provide security and counsel. Most Federalists were artisans, merchants and large farm owners. Anti-Federalists wanted more power to the states; they felt that if the Constitution was ratified power would be taken away from the people. These individuals were small farm owners who…

    • 227 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    the idea of drafting the new constitution, the Anti Federalists. The other is the Federalist, who supported the idea. The Anti-federalists argued that the new constitution would post a threat to its people freedom and liberty. They said that the constitution would give the central government too much power, and at the end may ends up like their mother land, England. But, the Federalists have a totally different view on this matter. The federalists argued that…

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Federalists v. Anti-Federalists Participants in the Debate 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…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Federalists and the Anti Federalists went together like fire and ice. They always seemed to crash heads when it came to who should take power. The supporters of the proposed Constitution called themselves Federalists. They wanted a strong centered government. Unlike the Anti federalists, they 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…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    the subject of numerous debates. The contending groups consisted of Federalists, those who supported ratification, and Anti-Federalists, those opposed to the constitution. Each group published a series of letters known as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalist papers objected to provisions of the proposed constitution while the Federalist Papers defended the rationale behind the document. Anti-Federalist objections included that; the United States was too extensive to be…

    • 1711 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    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…

    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    When deciding whether the Constitution better embodied the American commitment to democracy (republicanism), or whether it produced a greater compromise to it, one must define the nature of a republican government. Both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist set forth their distinctive views on the quality of representational government, but it was James Madison and Alexander Hamilton vision I feel was the most correct. By accepting their view, it is clear that they propose the best arguments for why…

    • 1265 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    people were created: Federalists, who supported the new Constitution; and the Anti-Federalists, who were against the new form of government. During the Constitutional Convention, both parties presented their case, their form of government and evidence supporting why that was the best way for America to be governed. America must have a National and a State government in order to function properly and fulfill its people’s needs. On the one hand, there is Centinel, an Anti-federalist that argues in The…

    • 615 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Debate After Articles of Confederation it was seen necessary to repeal the Articles and create one that is perfect for everyone in the country, but it wasn’t that easy. Federalists claimed that we needed a strong central government to prevent rebellions such as Shay’s Rebellion that damaged the states while the Anti-Federalists feared that a strong central government could turn into a kingdom like U.K. which they have fought and damaged deeply, recently. In different…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays