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 concepts ideas and standards that were set forth by both the anti-federalists and the federalists as well as other more moderate politicians are expressed throughout the foundational documentation of the United States.
Most notably the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution are a reflective example of the compromises and victories of both sides but this can be seen elsewhere in the foundational documentation as well. Knowing this and being able to demonstrate it through careful analysis of the legacy of documentation that remains from this very public and heated debate is the responsibility of any student of American History.
Even today the debate and the knowledge it holds has much the same importance as was felt by the anti-federalist writer Brutus in his first know address to the country on the subject.
When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result.
Brutus and many others expressed their personal and political fears with a well expressed zeal that cannot be mistaken. Their own lives, the lives of their children and even their grand children could be forever affected by well planned and well intended outcome, the affects being good or bad was in the hands of these new lawmakers.
Within the addresses that appeared in the public arena, namely notable newspapers, the television of the time are hundreds of documents and letters pronouncing the validity of the arguments in favor of a strong federal government and in favor of a weaker federal government
Both sides of the debate argue valid points, based on understandings of history and politics they had seen within their own times or the times of their fathers. Yet, some of the most telling of arguments were waged by the Anti-federalists, namely DeWitt, Brutus and Cato.
Reduced to a very simplistic summation, anti-federalists believed that a strong central government, on paper and in reality would lead to a dominant central authority, which would leach power from the states and the individual based on the historical perspective of watching this very thing happen repeatedly in western civilization, namely Europe.
A rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with which they are vested for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed, as individuals in a state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as proper that bounds should be set to their authority, as that government should have at first been instituted to restrain private injuries. This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience."
Federalists, on the contrary believed that a weak central government would be ineffective and useless in times of national need and could not stand independently to make decisions about national needs if constantly in conflict with state and local governmental entities. Yet, most importantly the anti-federalists were asking for careful examinations of not only motive but fact and future when decisions so serious were to be made.
Convention from the different States for that sole purpose hath been appointed of their most respectable citizens -- respectable indeed I may say for their equity, for their literature, and for their love of their country. -- Their proceedings are now before us for our approbation. -- The eagerness with which they have been received by certain classes of our fellow citizens, naturally forces upon us this question: Are we to adopt this Government, without an examination?
Probably the most effective way to judge the correlation between the anti-federalist papers as they are called and the actual Bill of Rights is by analyzing each amendment for the messages it conveys of the anti-federalist cause. The first amendment being: Congress shall...
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/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
Introduction The penning of the American Constitution during the 1787 Philadelphia convention was followed by its ratification. This formal process delineated within Article 7 necessitated at least 9 states’ agreement to implement the Constitution, prior to actually enacting it (Pole, 1987). Whilst the Federalists supported ratification, Anti-Federalists were against it. Those opposed to the constitution’s ratification claimed that it accorded disproportionate power to federal authorities, whilst robbing local and state bodies of their power, excessively. According to
Federalist Papers 1 In Federalist Paper #1, it was stated that history will teach that emphasis on the rights of man is far more likely to end in despotism and tyranny than emphasis on “firmness and efficiency of government” (Federalist No. 1, 2008). In other words, Hamilton and the Federalists were now trying to back track and step back from America’s emphasis on the Rights of Man (Paine’s philosophy and words) eloquently
2. The issue concerning the drafting of the constitution and of the distribution of power inside the United States was based on the discussions over the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Each of their points is summarized in the Federalist Papers, the reaction of the Federalists to the arguments of their opponents. In this sense, the Federalist Paper no 47 discusses precisely the matter of the distribution of power; while the
Some of these ideas recurred after the establishment of the Constitution, yet the political unity began to fade. In 1800, the first anti-Federalist president was elected through Thomas Jefferson. Still, the issue of slavery became a matter for increasing tensions. At the moment of the Louisiana Purchase, the question over slave states and abolitionist ones became inevitable. In this context, the aspect related to the powers of the central government
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now