Federalism vs Anti-Federalism

484 Words2 Pages
Name U.S History Instructors name 10/14/14 Federalist Vs Anti-federalist From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together. The Federalist Party, led by James Madison, was in favor of the newly formed Constitution. One of the main purposes of the federal constitution was to secure the union and in addition include any other states that would become a part of the union. The federal constitution would also set its aim on improving the base of the union. Things that this would include would be improvements on roads, settlement for travelers, interior navigation, etc. Another purpose for the Federalist Constitution would be in regards to the safety of each individual state. They believed that each state should find a motive to make some sacrifices for the purpose of the general protection. The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few simple reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. As a result, they proposed The Bill of Rights, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our
Open Document