Federalists and Anti-Federalists
The feud between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist party was based on the ratification of the Constitution. Even though both groups believed that the principal purpose of government is to secure individual rights and that the best instrument for that purpose is some form of limited republican government. They also agreed that the individual has the right to do anything that the government has no power to keep him from doing. However, they did disagree on the ratification of the Constitution of 1788.
The Anti-Federalist party, which was greatly comprised of people that lived in rural areas, were those that opposed the development of a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. They preferred instead for the power to remain in the hands of state and local government. Their vision highlighted the dangers of concentrated power and pointed to how republican accountability depends upon the active and meaningful participation of citizens, a type of participation that would be undermined if government were to grow distant. They pushed for strict checks and balances and certain limited political terms that would keep any one branch of the federal government from holding too much power for too long. They opposed the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included in the constitution. The Bill of Rights, written by James Madison, was the first ten amendments to the U. S. constitution, that guaranteed the individual rights. It lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. Main supporters of the Anti-Federalist views were Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and Samuel Adams. The Federalist party, which was greatly comprised of people that live in urban areas, were those that wanted a stronger national government and the passing of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. They …show more content…
Newspapers aggressively took sides in this dispute. In fact, many newspapers published the Constitution of 1787, allowing Americans across the country to read and discuss it. The Federalist, a collection of essays originally published in New York newspapers, were some of the most prominent debates over the Constitution . The many debates that took place during this time led the Americans to make changes to the Constitution. These debates did not necessarily end in 1787, but became a framework of government whose resilience enabled later generations to continue to perfect their republican …show more content…
This was the product of the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists debates. These two groups fiercely disagreed more over the means than the ends. Both sides acknowledged that a stronger national authority was needed and that such an authority required an independent source of revenue to function properly. They also both agreed that safeguards against tyranny need to be established. But, they disagreed on whether the enumeration of federal power would by itself serve to restrain the national government within those powers. The two sides in the end worked together. The Federalists won the debate, and the Constitution was ratified. However, they did acknowledge that the Constitution could be improved by the addition of the Bill of Rights that was promoted by the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution has provided a model of resilient republican government whose features have been repeatedly borrowed by other nations throughout the years. It also has provided a flexible system of government that presidents, legislators, judges, and the people have adjusted to changing social, economic, and political
The feud between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist party was based on the ratification of the Constitution. Even though both groups believed that the principal purpose of government is to secure individual rights and that the best instrument for that purpose is some form of limited republican government. They also agreed that the individual has the right to do anything that the government has no power to keep him from doing. However, they did disagree on the ratification of the Constitution of 1788.
The Anti-Federalist party, which was greatly comprised of people that lived in rural areas, were those that opposed the development of a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. They preferred instead for the power to remain in the hands of state and local government. Their vision highlighted the dangers of concentrated power and pointed to how republican accountability depends upon the active and meaningful participation of citizens, a type of participation that would be undermined if government were to grow distant. They pushed for strict checks and balances and certain limited political terms that would keep any one branch of the federal government from holding too much power for too long. They opposed the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included in the constitution. The Bill of Rights, written by James Madison, was the first ten amendments to the U. S. constitution, that guaranteed the individual rights. It lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. Main supporters of the Anti-Federalist views were Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and Samuel Adams. The Federalist party, which was greatly comprised of people that live in urban areas, were those that wanted a stronger national government and the passing of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. They …show more content…
Newspapers aggressively took sides in this dispute. In fact, many newspapers published the Constitution of 1787, allowing Americans across the country to read and discuss it. The Federalist, a collection of essays originally published in New York newspapers, were some of the most prominent debates over the Constitution . The many debates that took place during this time led the Americans to make changes to the Constitution. These debates did not necessarily end in 1787, but became a framework of government whose resilience enabled later generations to continue to perfect their republican …show more content…
This was the product of the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists debates. These two groups fiercely disagreed more over the means than the ends. Both sides acknowledged that a stronger national authority was needed and that such an authority required an independent source of revenue to function properly. They also both agreed that safeguards against tyranny need to be established. But, they disagreed on whether the enumeration of federal power would by itself serve to restrain the national government within those powers. The two sides in the end worked together. The Federalists won the debate, and the Constitution was ratified. However, they did acknowledge that the Constitution could be improved by the addition of the Bill of Rights that was promoted by the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution has provided a model of resilient republican government whose features have been repeatedly borrowed by other nations throughout the years. It also has provided a flexible system of government that presidents, legislators, judges, and the people have adjusted to changing social, economic, and political