Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Federalist/anti-Federali
In many ways, the initial political parties in the fledgling nation of the United States were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As the names of these partisans indicate, many of their ideals and objectives were diametrically opposed to one another. For the most part, Federalists were in favor of a strong centralized government, while Anti-Federalists were more committed to states rights and autonomy. As history indicates, in the end the Federalist viewpoint decidedly won and played a far more influential role in the shaping of the country -- especially in contemporary times -- than that of Anti-Federalists.
Federalists favored a strong centralized government largely because of what was perceived as the inefficacy of a decentralized government in which individual states had a great degree of authority and independence from one another. The Articles of Confederation was one of the major impetuses for the Federalist viewpoint. The Articles provisioned states rights and explicitly called for a unanimous decision on the part of all states for any substantial federal measures to take place (Rowland, 1977, p. 1574). When there was the need for federal intervention (such as when it was necessary to mobilize against other countries, which became evident with border...
These supporters (which included Thomas Jefferson early on) were weary of tyranny and the omnipotent authority of a central government, and preferred the autonomy and independence that each state could have instead. One of the chief points that Anti-Federalists differed with Federalists on was a centralized bank, which Alexander Hamilton was largely responsible for founding during George Washington's tenure as president. Most states had banks at the state level (Van Cleve, 2014, p. 529).
One of the most tangible indicators of the differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was found in the ratifying of the constitution. The notion of states rights vs. those of the federal government were at the core of this prolonged process. Anti-Federalists feared that states would lose their power and autonomy -- which is why some (such as Rhode Island) refrained from ratifying the Constitution for as log as possible. Federalists, for their part, were concerned that there would be too many rights given to the states and not to the centralized government. Furthermore, there…
References
Estes, T. (2011). The Connecticut effect: The Great Compromise of 1787 and the history of small state impact on electoral college outcomes. Historian. 73(2), 255-283.
Rowland, Y. (1977). The Articles of Confederation and perpetual union. American Bar Association Journal. 63(11), 1572-1575.
Van Cleve, G.W. (2014). The Anti-Federalists' toughest challenge. Journal of the Early Republic. 34(4), 529-560.
Federalist and Anti-Federalist Review Federalist papers were written in support of the ratification of the U.S. constitution while anti-federalists were written in opposition of the same. The most important papers in federalist series were paper 10 and 5 both written by James Madison on the subject of power distribution within the federation. Anti-federalist paper 3 was written under the pseudonym Brutus and meant to oppose the arguments raised by Madison on
Federalist Papers The purpose of the Federalist Papers The Federalist Papers were prepared to ensure that a constitution was ratified to provide a perfect union. The Papers focused on the concept of a perfect and improved union. While this could be the primary purpose of the document, it was also concerned with other things. Aspects of the federalist like welfare, safety, and union are inseparable, and the union seems to be much
Federalists & Anti-Federalists Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists The contextual framework of the historic debate between federalists and anti-federalists involved major institutional expansion and reform as well as the political sphere. Although both groups of leaders embraced popular accountability as the standard of government legitimacy, their respective approaches differed quite significantly; reflecting different perspectives on the perils of citizen participation, concentrated power, and the need for effective and energetic government (Borowiak, 2007). The leaders of
Federalist and Anti-Federalist Beliefs The objective of this study is to determine if the beliefs of the Federalists were more convincing than those of the Anti-Federalists and if so then why they were more effective. The arguments of the anti-federalist is that liberty cannot be secured when it is held by a government that is one that holds a great deal of power and is distant from the population and that
Anti-Federalist & Bill of Rights The Anti-federalist vs. Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. Though the length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the constitution was approved by the first congressional convention to June of 1788 when Virginia was the first to ratify the constitution of the United States. The
It is interesting to note the statement of Semonche that Antifederalists tended to live inland where small farming operations were located while Federalists preferred to live along the coastlines in high commercial growth areas of the country. The Federalists view of the Constitution was one that questioned the compromises required in ratification of the Constitution as compared to the provisions of the 'Articles of Confederation'. However, there was more