Analyze the reasons for the Anti-Federalists opposition to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists criticized the Constitution for having been drafted in secrecy. They further argued that the Constitution took important powers from the states, and the fact that they could not print money under the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights.
Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not these documents should or should not be passed and what power is justified. It is these different ideas which helped shape the future of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were against ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the closer the government was to the people, the easier it was for the people to keep it in check and making it harder for the government to become tyrannical. Anti-Federalist tried to appeal to western settlers with ideas of voting right to everyone and not just rich land holders.
This specific paper is about factions and how he was opposed to them because he thought they would tear apart the unity that held the states together. The Federalist Papers had an extensive influence on the Constitution. Madison helped draft the Constitution. He is often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”. Madison and the other 56 delegates gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787.
He would lead rallies against federal authority. By doing this it gave the Federal Government barely enough power for them to unite the states. Because of this, he believed that the federal government should have very limited powers. The Federalist government only had certain powers that were necessary give a central position that would not appeal the Individual but United States of America. This can be found in the tenth amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Some supporters say that a state should have more power than the federal government and then there are others who say the Federal government should be the ruling body alone. You have a central government that functions to keep the country working as a unit, but also works to keep the states from encroaching on individuals and becoming too intrusive. The same works for states. The states have a lot of control over what their citizens should be subject to. For example, criminal laws, property laws, contract laws...etc are decided by the state, not the federal government and they aren’t allowed to govern those areas.
The stark diffrences between the two parties lead the the demise of the Federalist Parties and the rise of the Democratic Republicans. The Federalist and the Democratic Republicans have many different views on how they believe the government should be and how it should be set up. The federalists lead by Alexander Hamilton believed that the United States should create the first national bank, to help fund the nations debt from the war and to establish a states government and not a central government , but the Democratic Republicans believed it was against the constitution to establish a national bank, the Democratic Republicans also believed that a strong central government should be established instead of a states government, and with this one currency instead of one for every state. The Federalists also believed that a protective Tariff should be put in place to shield infant industries, the Federalist also believed in commercial trade throughout the sea ports to other countries. The Democratic Republicans on the other hand believed that no special tariff should be put on the manufacturers, and didn't believe in commercial trade they believed in agriculture.
The constitution laid out a plan of 3 branches of government. The 3 were the executive branch, the legislative branch, and judiciary. This was included by the anti-federalists as one of their main arguments against the ratification because of the strong central government where they preferred the power to be within the states. Another reason why the anti-federalists opposed ratification was due to representation and large area republics. Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area.
Jefferson, however, argued that since the Constitution didn't state that it would allow a National Bank, it shouldn't be created. This is one example of how Hamilton and Jefferson felt that something should be changed, however, show differences in their opinions as to how to fix the problem. Another strong difference Hamilton and Jefferson have is their view on form of government. Alexander Hamilton is a strong Federalist, in which believed in strong government, similar to today's Democrats, while Thomas Jefferson was a strong Anti-Federalist, meaning he was against big government, which is like today's Republicans. This, again, indicates another example of how these two are so similar in views of things to change in government, however, have different visions on how to improve those things.
At this time there was a struggle between northern states(anti-slave states) and southern states(slave states). Both wanter to maintain power of government without the other trying to as well. This was shown when Tallmadge and Thomas both came up with amendments for congress’ conundrum. Tallmadge was a northerner who didn’t want slavery to exsist in the newly found state. Not because of the morality of it all but because he didn’t want the south to maintain more power.
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.