Federalists and Anti-Federalists Arguments

America's first Articles of Constitution was first signed in 1781. Before each state ran like independent countries. This lead to several lengthy debates and to the drafting of the Constitution; conflict and compromise were present during this event. But it was certain that there had to be a change. The delegates tried their best to solve their differences and to come up with what they thought would be the best for the country. However, under the Articles, when the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution in 1787, it needed the ratification from nine states before it could go into effect. This was not easy. And the push for ratification brought on a seemingly endless barrage of documents, articles, and pamphlets both supporting and opposing it. This lead to a division two groups that had their differences on which political party would be the best to govern the country. One of the organizations only wanted one central poewerful government and executive branch, they claimed under the name as the Federals. The other organization considered on something equal, and believed that to have a well functional government, every state should have their own power, instead of just a central one, and these were the Anti-federalist. After so many debates, they had to come up with a resolution. Enable to resolve their conflicts, they ended up adopting a Bill of Rights. First I will discuss the point of views of the Federalist and their argument and that they thought was better for the country at the time. Next, I will discuss the Anti-federalists point p views and their arguments. Thirdly, I will compare and contrast their views, opinions and arguments, and what they did enable to resolve their differences. Lastly I will conclude this essay.

The Federalists arguments and views for the country were a bit selfish, but organized. They only believed that enable for the constitution to work was for it to only be one central government. The leaders wanted a strong government, a good financial credibility, and to promote economic growth. Some of its leaders were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams. There were more organized in their effort, and came up with three independent braches to protect the rights of the people because all three branches would be equal. Their view on a Bill of Rights was that I would be a dangerous move, because if the national government were to protect listed rights, what would stop the people from violating rights that were not listed, since they cannot list all of the right, they argued that no list of rights was better. The Federalists developed a new political philosophy, where they saw their most import role as defending the social gains of the Revolution. James Madison, one of the great Federalist leaders explained, that the Constitution was designed to be a ""republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government."" In other words that one central power would be the best.

Now the opposing side; the Anti-federalist. They were more on the equal side, unlike the federalist, they wanted each state to have their own power, and they believed that a Bill of Rights was indeed needed. Some of its leaders were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and George Mason. They opposed the vision of the Federalist's proposed Constitution, they believed that it would lead the United States to the road of political corruption. The three branches of the new central government threatened the Antifederalists' traditional belief in the importance of restraining government power. The federalist wanted to create the Bill of Rights, which will contain the first 10 amendments to protect the rights of the people.

Both political groups wanted the best for the Constitution and wanted to make the country economical better and for it to function at its best. But their differences are many, the Federalist wanted one central government, while the Anti-federalist wanted for each state to have a local power, instead of just one for all the states. The Anti-federalist were supported by people whom lived in rural areas, and focused in smaller rural communities dominated by farmers, while the Federalist were supported by people who lived in lager urban areas and focused in big business interests. The Federalist did not like the idea to have a list of rights, and the Anti-federalist did want to have a list of the protected rights of the people. To resolve the conflict between them, the Federalist did actually ended up participating in the drafting of the Bill of Rights, which was used for the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, they protect the individual rights and freedoms (again except of for the slaves). Ultimately, Anti-federalists influenced the document, to push for stricter checks and balances and certain limited political enable to keep the government to go down the road of corruption.

In conclusion, even though the Federalist opposed at first the creation of the Bill of Rights they even up actually being part of, enable to full-fill the Anti-federalist request. The Anti-federalist may have not completely won the debate, but they did get one of their request happen. The views and arguments of both political groups were learned, compared and contrasted; one wanted one central power while the other wanted power for all, and in the end one resolution was stated and only one group won the govern of the countries, which were the Federalist, but as long as the Bill of Rights was kept.

Cite this page