Who were the Federalists and AntiFederalists AntiFederalists People who opposed ratifying the Constitution George Mason Edmond Randolph and Elbridge Gerry Each had attended the Philadelphia Convention but refused to sign the Constitution ID: 753732
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Anti-Federalists vs. Federalists Debate" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Anti-Federalists vs. Federalists Debate Slide2
Who were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
Anti-Federalists:
People who opposed ratifying the Constitution
George Mason, Edmond Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry
Each had attended the Philadelphia Convention but refused to sign the Constitution
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee
All signed the Declaration of Independence, but opposed at first the ratification of the new Constitution
Federalists:
People who favored ratification
--
John Jay, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James MadisonSlide3
Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
John Jay
Federalists
PubliusSlide4
Prominent Anti-federalists
-Cato’s
Letters
-Brutus
-
Centinel
-Federal Farmer
Anti-Federalists
were more concerned with protecting the
rights of the individual people and states than promoting the pubic good as a whole.
Patrick HenrySlide5
George Mason
Anti-Federalist
Virginian
Plantation owner
Wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights which becomes the model for the Bill of Rights
Refused
to sign the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was includedSlide6
Most Americans were very suspicious of government, but the Anti-Federalists were especially mistrustful of strong
government.
They feared they had created a government that the people could not controlSlide7
DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW
Federalists
argued
for
a
strong national government
Three branches of government filled with men of “reputation”
a president to lead executive branch
No Bill of Rights (Unnecessary)
Antifederalists argued
States should have power
Legislative
branch
should
be strongest branch of government
A
strong president
could become a tyrant
A Bill of Rights
was needed to
protect the rights of AmericansSlide8
An Unfair Advantage?
The Federalists publish their essays in New York newspapers and pamphlets in 1787-1789
Newspapers support the Federalist side and publish more Federalist writings than Anti-Federalist writings!Slide9
The Federalists Papers
John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the
Federalist Papers
to get support for the Constitution.
The Federalist
addressed issues such as representation, rights of individuals and majority rule
.
The Anti-Federalists respond in the “Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention”, which argued the fear of a strong executive branch and the absence of a Bill of Rights.Slide10
Does the national government have too much power?
The supremacy clause means that all the national government’s laws are superior to laws made by the states
It will only be a matter of time until the state governments are destroyed
The Constitution provides protections for the state governments by specifically reserving certain powers for the states
This will prevent the states from being destroyed by the national government
Anti-Federalists
FederalistsSlide11
Does the national government have too much power?
The necessary and proper clause is too general
It gives too much power to the national government
It is dangerous not to list all the powers of government in order to put clear limits on them
The necessary and proper clause and general welfare clause are needed if the national government is to do the things it is responsible for doing
Anti-Federalists
FederalistsSlide12
Does the national government have too much power?
The Constitution gives too much power to the executive branch of government
It will soon become a monarchy
A strong executive branch is necessary
It is needed if the national government is to fulfill its responsibilities
Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have checks on the use of power by the Executive branch
The executive branch cannot become a monarchy
The power of the national government are separated and balanced among the three branches
No one branch can dominate the othersThis system makes it impossible for any person or group to take complete control of government
Anti-Federalists
FederalistsSlide13
Does the Constitution provide for republican government?
Throughout history, the only places where republican governments worked had been in small communities
There, the people had similar wealth and the same values
People who are not too rich or too poor are more likely to have civic virtue
Such people are more likely to agree on what is best for the common good
The new nation would be too large and diverse
The people will not be able to agree on their common welfare
History has proven that selfish groups destroyed all the small republics of the past
The civic virtue of the citizens was not enough to keep people from seeking their own interests
People did not work for the common goodA large republic where power is divided between the national and state governments is a better solutionIt is also better to organize government based on checks and balancesUnder such a government, it will be more difficult for special interests to work against the common good
Anti-Federalists
FederalistsSlide14
Does the Constitution provide for republican government?
Free government requires the active participation of the people
The national government will be located far from where most people live
People will be unable to participate in government
As a result, the only way government will be able to rule will be with military force
The result will be tyranny
The national government cannot become a tyranny
The limits placed on government by the system of separation of powers and checks and balances will prevent it
Government will be so good at protecting the rights of the people that it will soon gain their loyalty and support
Anti-Federalists
FederalistsSlide15
Is a Bill of Rights needed for the Constitution?
The Constitution does not include a bill of rights
A bill of rights is necessary to protect people against the power of the national government
There is no mention of freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly
Since these freedoms are not in the Constitution, government is free to violate them
Americans recently fought a war to secure their fundamental rights
They do not want a constitution that places those rights in jeopardy
A bill of rights is not needed
The Constitution is the ultimate protection for people’s rights and the people are the ultimate sovereigns
The Constitution does not give government the power to deprive people of their rightsIt gives government only limited power to do certain thingsA bill of rights will give the impression that the people can expect protection only for the rights that are actually listedThe Constitution protects a number of rights by requiring writs of habeas corpus, and prohibiting ex post facto laws and bills of attainder
Anti-Federalists
FederalistsSlide16
Issue
Anti-Federalists Fear
Federalists Response
The
Biggest
threat to
The
people
The biggest threat to the people is the
tyranny of the government.
If a government is too big, it will have too much power, and consolidate, eventually leading to the government being ruled by a powerful
elite
The largest threats to the people is
having a small government in which those in the minority will never have power.
If there is a large government the diverse populations will ensure that a small group of people, a
dangerous minority
with
radical ideas
does not gain power. Slide17
Issue
Anti-Federalists Fear
Federalists Response
Protection of
Individual Rights
The
rights
guaranteed to the people should be included in the Constitution or else they are not
guaranteed
The
checks
and
balances
are enough to keep the government from taking the rights of the people away.Slide18
Issue
Anti-Federalists Fear
Federalists Response
Representation
The government should be run by
representatives
that are very
similar
to those who they are representing. This new government will encourage only the well educated
elite
to be representatives who are using this as an opportunity to gain power
The federal government should be run by
well educated
and
experienced
men, the
elite.
These are the men that are best educated and will be able to make the best decisions.Slide19
Issue
Anti-Federalists Fear
Federalists Response
People will not hold government accountable
A
free
government requires the active support of the people. The new government would be so
large
that people would not be involved in government, leading eventually to the government taking too much
power
.
The central government created
cannot
take the
rights
of the people because of the many
checks
and
balances
in the ConstitutionSlide20
Issue
Anti-Federalists Fear
Federalists Response
Power given to the federal government
The limits of the power given to the federal government are not
clear
and will result in the president becoming a
monarch
.
More limits should be made through a
Bill
of
Rights
.
The checks and balances in the Constitution will be effective in
restraining
the
power
of the
federal government
. The president does not have the power to make laws, so he/she cannot become a monarchSlide21
Why did the Federalists agree to add a Bill of
Rights
to the Constitution?
A compromise was reached on the issue of a bill of rights
The Federalists made this compromise to get enough support for the Constitution so that it would be ratified
They agreed that when the first Congress was held, it would draft a bill of rights
The argument to add a bill of rights was a victory for the Anti-Federalists
It was an important addition to the Constitution and has been of great importance in the protection of the basic rights of the American People