Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

480 Words2 Pages
At the end of the American Revolution the Articles of Confederation established an Anti-Federalist paradise in the United States. A weak league of friendship was formed between each state, angering Federalists who sought a stronger central government and causing political, economic and social problems. Shay’s Rebellion, inability to collect taxes and the worthless state currency were all problems that lead to the formation of a new constitution. After becoming free from the tyrannical rule of the British crown the Anti-Federalists were hesitant to establish a strong central government. This set into motion the forming of the Articles of Confederation which created a weak bond between states and a congress with essentially no power to put any law into motion. In 6 years it was realized that the Articles were failing and needed to be replaced at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Politicians from two groups were split into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists were in favor of a strong central government and a tight bond between states whereas the Anti-Federalists favored and weaker government with less power over individual states. At the Constitutional Convention the Federalists drew up plans for a new constitution while the Anti-Federalists complained and picked apart their plan, even though the Anti-Federalists had no plan of their own. The main issue the Anti-Federalists had with the new constitution was that they thought that it would not protect the rights of states and individuals. Federalists argued that a stronger government was necessary, not to impede individual rights, but to be able to pass and enforce laws. Federalists also argued a stronger bond between states was needed to improve the economic state of the country. Under the Articles of Confederation each state printed their own currency which became worthless in any other
Open Document