Compare And Contrast The Oddss Of Federalists And Anti-Federalists

When the Articles of Confederation proved to be a poor system of government for the United States a new Constitution was made. As with any political document, there were those who supported the document and those who opposed it. These groups were at odds with each other for much of the ratification process. Federalists and Anti-Federalists fought and debated over the Constitution. What the words meant, how they were enforced, and who enforced them were often things at the center of the conflict. Groups created clear divisions with other groups during this time as well. The road to the Constitution was not a straight easy path. It was full of twist and turns, debates, and was coupled with the addition of political parties.

It was reasonable …show more content…
This conflict came in different forms and among different groups of people. To an extent, there was international conflict. New England Federalists and Thomas Jefferson were at odds about certain aspects of the national policy. This division came into effect because of Jefferson’s embargo. New England was also at odds with the south. They claimed that the “southern planter was the emblem of a national threat” (Waldstreicheir, 172). New England often tried to place trouble and sin in the south. New England was losing power with the expansion and that put them at odds with others. They did not have as much control and influence in the new country and often found that unsettling. They also claimed that they had a pure history. They had “no certificates of French citizenship to divide their love” (Waldstreicher, 175-176). New England felt that they were more loyal to the United States and for that reason they were better than the people in the south. Young had many divisions among the people of the United States as well but, many were quite different. One of the major divisions that Young had was democratic divisions. One group was agrarian democrats. This group typically felt that the Constitution was “the work of an old class enemy” (Young, 139). This group consisted of a lot of poor farmers who were scared of being overrun by the elites. The other were urban democrats. In general, the Urban …show more content…
Before the revolution, the public sphere allowed people to talk about common controversial issues. They were able to speak their mind about religion and politics without the fear of prosecution. By the time the formation of the Constitution came along, many people were practiced at speaking their minds and not being afraid of prosecution. In a sense, the public sphere lead to the Federalist Papers. When the people talked, the framers listened to their arguments. They then were able to try and dissolve the worries of those who initially opposed the Constitution. For example, in response to a fear of a central government that had too much power, they replied “by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places…” (Hamilton, 131). Hamilton also addresses worries concerning the president. He takes an interesting approach and compares it to England. Without the public sphere, it is possible that the Federalist Papers would not have as strong of an affect. People who wrote the Federalist Papers would have likely dreaded the results that the public sphere had. When the people talked, they uncovered problems, and the framers wanted the Constitution to pass quickly. Others, such as Thomas Jefferson and Daniel Shays, would encourage the public sphere. To them, the skepticism and criticism that could accompany the public sphere was a positive attribute. It gave