Anti Federalist Papers example essay topic

The anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the constitution. The views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists were completely different. The Federalist and anti-Federalist papers were battles over problems with the Constitution. The only reason the anti-Federalists agreed to help ratify the constitution was because of the Bill of Rights and without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been ratified. Following the American Revolution the United States was free of British control, the first attempt at a formal government was a document called the Articles of Confederation. Many agreed that under the Articles of Confederation enough power was not given to the central government, and on the other hand too much power was given to the state government.

As a result of the Articles of Confederation the Philadelphia Convention was called in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. The convention was originally called to help strengthen the Articles of Confederation, but it was decided a whole new constitution needed to be written. As a result the Constitution of the United States of America was born and with it came the opposing views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists were strong believers in the Constitution, and believed that this was the only way to achieve a just society where people could have their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Federalists were generally wealthy citizens, who's profession in most cases was a lawyer. A good example of this was Alexander Hamilton, who studied law before becoming a politician.

The supporters of the Federalists followed suit being "Propertied and educated people". (web) According to the Federalists if the Constitution had parts to it that didn't work it could be amended. This doesn't seem right because if it was written by a group of Federalists, then clearly amending it will favor their views. At the Philadelphia Convention the only type of people who could afford to make the trip were rich people, and rich people generally shared the views of Federalists. Federalists thought that the Constitution provided a strong central government by the people, but this was only partly true. The people of the United States were running the country, but it was only the upper class again. One of the major beliefs of the Federalists as pointed out at the Philadelphia convention was that a state should vote according to it's population, this later became a big issue with the anti-Federalists and people from the smaller states.

This also led to the Federalists wanting a strong executive branch of the government, with long terms of office and unlimited terms for the politicians. To them the Bill of Rights wasn't needed to ratify the Constitution. With all these little things the Federalists were just trying to take power, show they were the ones that control the country. They tried to keep people with the same opinions as them in office as long as possible, and they didn't want the Bill of Rights because they wanted to control the people of the United States. In charge of the Federalists was a rich lawyer from the British West Indies named Alexander Hamilton. In the pre-Revolution period he was a Whig, hating the British tyrants, but after the Revolution was won and politics split the country again he joined the party which more resembled the former Britain.

Like the rest of the Federalists, Hamilton believed in a strong central government, which gave them more power. His biggest contribution to his Federalist cause were the works he, James Madison and John Jay did on the Federalist Papers. This was propaganda to pull people towards the views of the Federalists in support of the Constitution. He also constantly fought for the ratification of the Constitution. In opposition of the Federalists were the anti-Federalists who later went by many names such as the Republicans and the Democratic Republicans.

These were people who were strongly opposed to the United States Constitution. They wanted a strong state government instead of a strong central government. To them if the central government was too strong then it would threaten the people's liberties and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The anti-Federalists were made up of anyone who was poor and not a big landowner, anyone tired of being controlled, anyone who wanted the people's votes to directly count and anyone who wanted to protect their rights. The anti-Federalists were made up of all different types of people, while the Federalists were mainly upper class. The anti-Federalists represented the United States population as a whole better than the Federalists.

When it came to the way the government was run the anti-Federalists wanted the complete opposite of the Federalists. The anti-Federalists wanted their power in the legislature, mainly the lower house where every state has one vote. They wanted the terms of office to be shorter, with limits on how many terms you could serve. These officials were not to be elected by representatives but directly by the people of the United States. The only way the anti-Federalists would ever even consider helping to ratify the Constitution was if it contained a Bill of Rights, which they thought was "essential for preserving the individual liberties" (web) of the people. Without this document the government could control every one like a tyranny.

To them the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was just a weapon of the upper class against the poor. The figurehead of the anti-Federalists was Thomas Jefferson who later became President of The United States. The funny thing about Jefferson was for a long time he would not choose sides between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, he was totally against political parties. He was for a strong central government, which was more of a Federalist's view. What made Jefferson come to his senses was Alexander Hamilton and his "implied powers" Implied powers were powers which were not stated directly in the Constitution (web), in other words powers that were assumed by the government. Jefferson was totally against this, he believed that the Constitution could do the things which the Constitution states it can and nothing should be assumed.

This was the start of a great feud between Hamilton and Jefferson, the first real battle of political parties for election in office. In the fight between Federalists and anti-Federalists propaganda played a large role on both sides. It first started in speeches and local newspapers when three Federalists wrote in to share their opinions. The anti-Federalists followed suit and read their own speeches and sent in their own letters sharing their views.

The only major difference between the two was the Federalist papers were written strictly by three politicians, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay; and the anti-Federalist papers were written by many anti-federalists which showed a wider range of their views. The Federalist Papers were written in 1788 by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. In all there are 85 Federalist Papers and their sole purpose was to gain support for the Federalists to help ratify the Constitution. The papers appeared in the Independent Journal during the course of the year in 1788. All of the papers were directed towards the people of New York who were in strong opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were some of the greatest propagandists of their time and these documents show it.

All of the Federalist papers were signed with the name "Publius", so know one would know the identity of the writer's. In the Federalist papers Madison, Jay, and Hamilton lay it right out on the table. In the first document written by Hamilton, the first line is "After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America" (web) In saying this Hamilton means that the people of the United States have to decide on the Constitution, based on what was Hamilton's influence in the Federalist papers. Throughout the papers Hamilton keeps trying to reiterate that if we do not ratify the Constitution we will be forced to return to a Confederate form of government which didn't work under the Articles of Confederation.

What he was trying to do was to beam his propaganda into the readers mind without being offensive. Hamilton played into the readers sense of patriotism. He used phrases such as "my fellow citizens", "my countrymen", and "the people of America", (web) to show unity between all the people of the United States. At that time in United States History the American Revolution was still fresh on the minds of the citizens, Hamilton was trying to persuade them by reminding them of that.

There was a lot of historical reference and philosophy in the Federalist paper's, in paper number two they even quoted Shakespeare, saying "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS", from Shakespeare's poem "Farewell! A Long Farewell... ". John Jay actually took a line from a poem about the rise and fall of mankind and turned it into political propaganda. Some other historical references include the American Revolution, the state of Genoa offending Louis XIV, Queen Anne, Henry V, the Peloponnesian War, the French Revolution, and Charlemagne. (web) Jay, Hamilton, and Madison were trying to show what they thought would happen to us without the Constitution.

References were made in the documents to many European philosophers such as John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Thomas Hobbes The authors also try to prove how great the Constitution was by continuously comparing it to the Articles of Confederation and pointing out the problems of the Articles of Confederation such as no power to stop the self interests of the states from tearing the union apart because the Articles provided no legal or political means to stop it. States quarreled with one another over land claims, commerce regulations, and frequently erected taxes against neighboring states. They also point out how under the Articles of Confederation the government had no power to produce a militia, and then spend many documents proving how under the Constitution it was possible. In opposition to the Federalist papers were the anti-Federalist papers. This was a cry by the anti-Federalists that the Constitution was not right, and opposing reasons why it should not be ratified. Some of the writers included Patrick Henry, James Winthrop, Robert Yates, George Clinton and John Dewitt.

Instead of just being under one name, the anti-Federalist papers have many names and many writers, which share a wider range of views. Some of the best points in the anti-Federalist papers came from the authors known as "Brutus", and "A Federal Farmer" The author behind "Brutus" was Robert Yates, and no one was sure who "A Federal Farmer" was. One of the key points these two made was about the "necessary and proper clause", this clause in the Constitution gave "Congress the power to make laws which were necessary to execute all powers vested by the Constitution". (web) They argued that the Constitution only had the power to do what it states it can, and that nothing should be assumed by the government. This means that the government should not use the necessary and proper clause as "a blanket grant of power" (web), or in other words the government should not interpret the necessary and proper clause to mean they have the power to act on something if it was not in the Constitution saying they can't.

In opposition to this the Federalists argued that the Constitution could not cover everything the government needs to do, so there were "implied powers" This argument lasted a long time and is still debated today. The anti-Federalists were right to argue about this because even today many feel the government is using the necessary and proper clause to their own advantage. Patrick Henry even saw the Constitution as a Revolutionary document much like the our separation from Britain, he said "I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain". (web) He believed that the Constitution was a document to take power away from the people of the United States, and give more power to the rich, much like the United States was ruled under Britain. Patrick Henry said this because at that time the Constitution did not guarantee the natural rights of the people, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Despite the fact the Federalists and the anti-Federalists had opposing views about the Constitution, both were headed for a common goal.

This goal was forming a government that could run the country. This was why the anti-Federalists and Federalists came to terms and formed the Bill of Rights, for the country. The Bill of Rights were the first ten amendments to the Constitution. This was a document demanded by the anti-Federalists, in states like New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island where the battle for ratification was not clear. In these states the voting was a lot closer than in the states that first decided to ratify. Many anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, "as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government". (web) The British had just ended their control with the end of the Revolution, and a tyranny wasn't what many United States citizens were looking for.

Without the Bill of Rights it was like they were being controlled as a tyranny. The Bill of Rights includes freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to deny refuge to soldiers, the right to privacy from search, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to representation and to a speedy trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, the right to always have rights, and the right for states to rule on things not mentioned in the Constitution. That was a lot of power given back to the people. If the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights, the central government could get away with all these things. All in all, the anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the Constitution. They had opposing views compared to the Federalists, they wrote the anti-Federalist papers in opposition of the Federalist papers and felt a Bill of Rights was necessary in the Constitution.

The Federalists were not as much writing the Constitution for the country as much as they were writing it for themselves and without the Bill of Rights the government would have been more like a Tyranny than a Republic. Thomas Jefferson best sums this up when he said " "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". (web).