Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation. How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out?
During the creation of Constitution, each state had to approve it. During this time there were people who supported it, Federalist and who did not, Anti-Federalists. I am siding with Anti-Federalist since they were right in thinking they did not want to give all their power away to the national government. If you lived in a state separate from where government state is established, how would you get your problems in your state solved if you had a government who was telling you what to do but not really knowing what problems you had in your state. If I lived back in that time, and having just finished the war with Britain where we finally got our independence, I would remind people all the issues we had.
Debates Surrounding the Ratifying of the Constitution Both the proponents and opponents of ratification of the United States constitution had a plethora of justifications for their viewpoints. These groups, however, did not agree on which issues were the most relevant to their arguments, and as such, fractured into several smaller sub factions. The three eminent factions in this grand debate over the future of our country were the Federalists, who believed in a strong and centralized government that would support protect and subsidize their businesses. Federalists had two schools of thought, both belonging to the cause known as anti-federalism. They had substantial overlap but differed on their reasons for opposing the Constitution.
Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies. He says that the writers and supporters of the Constitution were Federalists and they believed that the Constitution was a fulfillment. Which basically means, that those Federalists didn’t see anything wrong with the Constitution. Antifederalists said the Constitution was a denial of the principles of 1776. They were saying that the Constitution was didn’t honor the liberty nor the self-government.
* Federalists- People who supported the Constitution during its adoption. They believed in large national government, weaker state government, and government by the elites. * Anti-Federalists- People who opposed the Constitution during its adoption. They wanted a small national government, strong state government, rule of the common man, and protections of individual liberties. * Define and give an example of separation of powers and checks and balances * Separation of powers- An aspect of the Madisonian Model of government that requires each of the three branched of government to be independent of and to share power with each other so that one cannot control the others.
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were influential in spurring the American people on to the idea of a stronger central government. The major Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, who vehemently opposed a new Constitution being ratified until the Bill of Rights was introduced. All in all the Anti-Federalist argument was weakly put together and failed to convince the public to stick with a revised version of the Articles of Confederation. All of these various factors contributed to the new Constitution because of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation the strengths of the new Constitution and the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists debate. Though we no longer go by the Articles of Confederation in today’s government this essay shows the many ways it was a major building block in today’s
The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force. Chiefly, the emergence of the American two-party system arose from strongly opposed political views, but also developed out of experience and a struggle for power. As previously stated, the main reason for the development of the party system in the United States, or any political party for that matter, is a difference in beliefs on how a government should be operated. The Federalists, formed by Alexander Hamilton – Washington’s Treasury Secretary – in 1794, favored federalism with government having the power to control commerce, tax, declare war, and make treaties among other powers.
The controversy of the argument was on the basis that, “there was an inherent connection between the states and the preservation of individual liberty, which is the end of any legitimate government.” Their own argument have invariably created a national government instead of a federal government. This is because “the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states, instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the states.” Anti-federalists were against constructing a new constitution and they agreed that without valid amendments the constitution would give the government too much power. This power would then lead to confusion according to the (Centinel 1787) “ The new constitution instead of being panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocated will be found upon examination like Pandora’s box replete with every
For example, there are multiple reasons why I disagree with Ambrose Bierce’s quote: “Un-American, adj. Wicked, intolerable, heathenish.” First of all, in this country, all citizens are entitled to their own opinions. Second, just because some don’t agree with other’s opinions doesn’t give them the right to declare them wrong. And also, even someone doing the bare minimum is still doing something to help. In the United States of America, the people are protected by a group of laws called the Constitution.