AntiFederalists v Federalists Why did the Framers want

Anti-Federalists v. Federalists

Why did the Framers want the people to ratify the Constitution? �The Constitution was far from perfect – the entire four months that the Framers spent creating it were filled with disagreements �A few delegates walked out of the meeting, other refused to sign the document �James Madison was worried that the Constitution would be rejected if Congress or state legislatures were asked to ratify it �Ratify = approve

Why did the Framers want the people to ratify the Constitution? �Because the people were going to be asked to follow the Constitution, they needed to approve it �In order for the Constitution to be accepted, nine states needed to ratify the document �The Framers were afraid that they wouldn’t be able to get all 13 states to ratify the document

The Federalists �Supported the ratification of the Constitution �Asked the states to organize ratifying conventions as quickly as possible �In order to support their view, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a series of articles for a New York Newspaper �Collectively, they were known as The Federalist Papers �The collection remains the most important explanation of the constitutional government ever written

The Anti-Federalists �Opposed the ratification of the Constitution �Leaders included: George Mason, Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry �Attended the convention and refused to sign it �John Hancock, Samuel Adams and Richard Henry Lee – all signed the Declaration – but refused to sign the Constitution

The Anti-Federalists �Most Americans were very suspicious of government �Anti-Federalists were especially suspicious of government in general and a strong national government in particular. �This mistrust was the basis of their opposition to the Constitution �They believed it would be a threat to their natural rights

The Debates �Debates in the states lasted ten months �They were intense and sometimes bitter political struggles �The most intense arguments were about three basic issues: �Whether the Constitution would maintain republican government (for the people) �Whether the national government would have too much power �Whether the Bill of Rights was needed in the Constitution

Does the national government have too much power? Anti Federalists � National govt. has too much power – the states have too little � The army that is raised by the government could go against the people � Supremacy clause – national govt. is superior to states’ laws – it will destroy the states � Too much power to the executive branch � Bottom line: The national government has too much power! Federalists � The Articles had a weak national government and it didn’t work! � The Constitution provides protections for states. Any power not listed in the Constitution will be up to the states. � A strong executive branch is necessary – Congress has checks on the use of power by the executive branch � The executive branch can never become a monarchy � Each branch is separate and balanced – no branch can dominate the others.

Does the Constitution provide for republican government? Anti Federalists �Republican governments have only worked in small communities with similar wealth and values – the country is too large and diverse �Free government requires the active participation – the government is too far away from most people �The government will only be able to rule with military force Federalists �People do not work for the common good – a large republic with powers divided between national and state governments are in the best interest of the people �There are too many limits on the government to create chaos, tyranny �The government is protecting the people – and it will get the respect of the people.

Is the Bill of Rights needed for the Constitution? Anti-Federalists �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 �If they aren’t written, the government can violate them Federalists �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 has limited power �If a bill of rights is included, the people can expect protection only for the rights listed.

Compromise & Ratification �The Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights in order to get enough support for the Constitution to it would be ratified �They agreed when the first Congress was held, they would draft a Bill of Rights �The Constitution was officially adopted on September 17, 1787 � 40 of the original 55 delegates signed the document