Federalist Vs. Anti Federalist

The two main views taken over ratifying the constitution were those of the Anti-Federalists and those of the Federalists. Although both sides had drastically different opinions about the ratification of The Constitution of the United States, many people supported each side and in the end it was only by a smidge that the Federalists prevailed and the Constitution was put into affect.

A federalist was a member of the Federalist Party, which supported the Constitution and was in favor of a strong national government, unlike the federal government under The Articles of Confederation. Some notable Federalists include: Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, and James Madison. The Federalist Party believed that under a fiscally sound and strong government the country would be able to save itself from collapsing and recover from the war debts and the issues brought upon by The Articles of Confederation. To help convey their message and gain support from the states and the people the federalists wrote a system of 85 essays and letters to newspapers and states, particularly New York. These letters are known as The Federalist Papers.

The Anti-Federalists were not completely against having the Constitution adopted, but there were certain changes and additions that had to be made before they were going to agree to ratify it. As seen through their eyes there was nothing in the Constitution that guaranteed the rights, that they had just fought Great Britain for, to the people. In light of this situation, they demanded that a list or bill of rights be added to the proposed Constitution before they were to agree. They also felt that by giving more powers to the federal government, rights and power were being removed from the possession of the population. The Anti-Federalists also wrote letters to newspapers and states saying that the Constitution promoted a tyranny and posed a threat to their rights.

In my opinion, the Anti-Federalist Party was correct in doubting that their rights were to be guaranteed by a document in which nothing about people's personal rights was said. If they had agreed to the Constitution as it stood, without a Bill of Rights, than quite possibly we would today not be the only free country in the world. For, having just been denied their rights by the British and having fought so patriotically and long, what use would it have be if we were to have a king and a parliament that decided things that directly affected and influenced the population, without first consulting those people of which the population consisted of? So, in closing, the Anti-Federalist and Federalist parties took different sides on the issue of ratification, but after a few years everybody agreed to ratify the Constitution, if a Bill of Rights was to be added.