Anti Federalist in 1787

538 Words3 Pages
Federalist or Anti-Federalist? Back in 1787, the American Constitution was in the process of being ratified. During this process, there stood two different armies of political philosophy- Federalists and the appropriately titled, Anti-Federalists. Conventions were held in Philadelphia and other cities to compromise and find some common ground. In this essay, I will briefly describe the differences between the two parties and argue as to why I would be a Federalist back in 1787. The Anti-Federalists believed that when the elite rule, their power hunger would make them become greedy and selfish. However, government itself is for the common good, as John Adams stated in his 1776 Thoughts on Government- “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.” This is why Anti-Federalists created the Bill of Rights- to protect the individual rights of the people from the reach of the government. Even though I would side with the Federalists, I feel just as they did, that the Bill of Rights is very important to protecting the citizen’s rights and liberties and that is why they accepted it in the compromise. The Anti-Federalists believed that a representative of the people does not need to filter out any of the people’s requests. I feel that this is a fallacy in their thinking because if a person’s opinion is wrong or uneducated, it will not benefit anyone. But yet the representative would carry through the request. Anti-Federalists seemed to care too much about trying to appease the need and
Open Document