Federalist Vs Anti-Federalists

Words: 887
Pages: 4

The Constitution brought about a resolution to the problems of the many weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Not everyone agreed with the Constitution or even the problems arising from the Articles of Confederation. These people were called Anti-Federalists and their views would not be as successful as the minds of the Federalists, since Anti-Federalist idea’s had many of the same characteristics as the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution needed to be ratified in order to bring change and solve the problems the Articles of Confederation left behind. One of the most known differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist groups was the idea of government and who should be running the nation. Federalists believe in a strong …show more content…
The Federalists believed that what was in the Constitution was enough to protect individual rights. “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was the Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from King John. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations” (Federalist No. 84). The quote explains the reasons why the Bill of Rights was not necessary and actually could cause great problems. The Bill of Rights first originated with kings whose powers needed to be determined, but the Constitution already takes care of this because there are limits on what each branch can execute, and there is no single, centralized official with unlimited powers, like the Anti-Federalists fear. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed the Bill of Rights was necessary because if some rights were worthy of protection inside the document, then all rights should have the same level …show more content…
While Anti-Federalists accept decentralized government, focus on States being supreme, find it necessary to prevent power consolidation, and desire a Bill of Rights, the differing Federalist’s views will result in a successful nation of a functioning government and satisfied society. Having a centralized government will guarantee leadership by the executive branch. “All men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive… The ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are unity; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers” (Federalist No. 70). A strong executive power is necessary to protect the country from foreign attack and to dispense the laws. This cannot pass with the Anti-Federalist position of the states being supreme with a small decentralized government. Evidently, Federalist views encourage