Preview

paper

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
323 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
paper
The debate between federalists and anti-federalists was very intense during the time the constitution was ratified. The anti-federalists wished to prevent a surplus of power in the national government by giving states the supreme power. Federalists wanted a larger central government for a good military and law enforcement. The anti-federalists had the most liberty under their form of government.
One problem the federalists had with their form of government was that it would allow the majority to infringe of the rights of the individuals. James Madison explained this in the federalist papers, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. If the views of the faction become the will of the majority of people, there is nothing to stop them from trampling on the rights of those who have different views. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.” One thing that the anti-federalists wanted to prevent was people’s rights being taken by groups of special interests. Another problem with the federalists is that they didn’t want the states to have the right to secede. Hamilton explains it this way, “All men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive … The ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are unity; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers.” So Hamilton wanted a strong executive branch to unite the states rather than allow them greater independence.
The anti-federalists had a heavy stance on natural rights and didn’t like to take someone’s right to see a judge without being incarcerated. This was a good law according to them, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Another thing the anti-federalists really liked was guaranteeing everyone a fair trial.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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

    The major arguments in the debate over the ratification over the U.S Constitution were the rights of individuals verses the rights of the states, the supporters and the opponents, were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Both sides the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists are debating to win the support of our nation.…

    • 390 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    debates. People that supported the Constitution argued that many state constitutions already did the job of protecting citizens’ rights. Supporters of the Constitution believed that these rights already existed as natural rights, even though they were not listed. The anti-federalists disagreed and believed there should be a list of rights. They feared that the stronger national government would abuse individual rights. The anti-federalists basically wanted a list of individual…

    • 206 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Founders’ perceptions were that America was weak and de-centralized. They created a weak, confederal government designed to protect people’s liberties by being to small to be a threat, but it was too small to handle national problems. The differences between the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution are that one, the US Constitution has a Bill of Rights, the power of the president is addressed and the separation of the branches. This changed occurred to make the government stronger and address the nation’s problems. The Anti-Federalists were a large group who didn’t like the Constitution but didn’t know what they wanted yet and they contributed to the branches. The Federalist were defenders of the constitution and they contributed to the bill of…

    • 446 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Constitution gave the federal courts appeal jurisdiction not only in matters of law, but also in determining matters that would normally be decided by a jury in the lower state court. Through this appellate jurisdiction, the antifederalist worried that the federal courts would eliminate the need for verdicts from local juries and state court systems altogether. The antifederalists thought that the jurisdiction that the federal courts had was too much, and as federal power grew, which they believed was inevitable, more cases would be taken to federal courts rather than state courts, thus reducing the importance of the state courts. Another major concern of the antifederalist was the degree of judicial independence given to federal judges. The Constitution stated that judges could not be impeached.…

    • 609 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Most cordially took their defeat and some even went on to become prominent leaders in the federal government. (America, 200) The idea of the Bill of Rights was acknowledged and was believed to be something that could improve the constitution.…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the Federalists' opinion some of the detrimental consequences of the confederate system were the lack of an organized treasury, military or government system. Furthermore, the nation suffered from poor commerce; a result of insecure financial transactions, non-regulated interstate trade, and poorly enforced tax laws. They believed that instead of ridding the country of oppression by a superior government, the Articles of Confederation creates conflict between the states and hinders economic prosperity. The emergence of these difficulties early in the life of our nation indicated, to those in favor of the constitution, the fundamental imperfections and the dire need for reform. Hamilton and the Federalists contend that a unified, federal system is more equipped to govern the nation.…

    • 543 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

    One party consisted of Federalist as the other party consisted of Anti-Federalist .The Federalists which had the belief that the United States should be unified under one central government . The Articles of The Confederation where too weak as extensive problems raised under this document .(such as the high tariffs for crossing from one state to another to import/export goods)Although some Anti-Federalist admitted that The Articles of The Confederation where inefficient most Anti-Federalist believed that the Article just had to be revised. The reasoning behind this was that the Anti-Federalist strongly feared not having a Republic (or a Democracy) in which the people's views were not expressed. Some Anti-Federalist held the belief that a Republic can't truly be an Republic if an larger-scale Republic overshadows it. An agreement was later reached which lay in the constitution the core principle of the Anti-Feudalists beliefs. The 10th amendment was ratified due to the Ideologies of the Anti-Federalist and there position of feudal government boundaries on American society…

    • 689 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Forming a new government comes with challenges and obstacles that the people need to overcome for the greater good of the country. During the time that the Americans formed the government, arguments were placed into the open to be solved. Solutions that were given, many were rejected and caused a lot of disagreement. Creating a government brought the country into disagreement between the anti-federalists and federalists for the concerns of rights of the people and power that was shared among them. Firstly, the anti-federalists disagreed how the rights were to be given to one another as well as the division of power between the states. Secondly, the federalists were satisfied with the conditions that were given to them, including the power they could have and what human rights that would protect them.…

    • 271 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Anti Federalism Dbq

    • 819 Words
    • 4 Pages

    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…

    • 819 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As Anti-Federalists, we argued for civil rights, and power to the people. For what seemed like an eternity, we had debated over the ratification of the constitution. Many things were said with a lot of elaboration and detail to go in them, but ultimately, it came down to four core words. Power to the people. One of the reasons that we had rejected the new central government was because it possessed too much power, and it ripped away the prestige for the states, and threatened their sovereignty. It did the same to the…

    • 688 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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…

    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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 lived in rural areas. They also believed that they should be able to spend money as they saw fit. The Articles of Confederation and Bill of Rights were important documents to the Anti-Federalists. This party had a majority of America at the time.…

    • 227 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays