As history is made day by day, reflections upon the past frequently pass through various people’s minds. Nowadays, politics have been on the minds of people, with the election coming up. This questioning over politics has occurred for many hundreds of years. In the later 1700s, political debates appeared between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists. My stance within this issue is leaning in favor of the Federalists. I believe that the ratification of the Constitution was a good idea. Viewpoints of government between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were and are still polar opposites. While both sides agreed that a stronger central government was necessary for the survival of the nation, Federalists believed that the nation would
…show more content…
Federalist believed that having less central government would equal to nothing developing.
"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Here, Federalists are saying that the minority won’t be represented if states (pure democracy) are the main source of power. The individual rights that the Anti-Federalists had been fighting for would have been useless. In contrary, Anti-Federalists believed that power residing within the state is the best model of government. In the New Constitution Creates a National Government, Will not Abate Foreign Influence, Dangers of Civil War and …show more content…
I believe that they wouldn’t be possible. Their idea of government controlled predominantly by state was already tested in the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation, national government was limited in power while states had the ability to impose taxes, set tariffs and organize armies. Conflicts arose because states wouldn’t be cooperative, the idea of union of will and force was not in effect. In addition, I think that with the government Anti- Federalists proposed, the common people wouldn’t have as great of a voice as someone of a higher rank. In the Federalist No. 39 it’s stated
Federalist believed that having less central government would equal to nothing developing.
"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Here, Federalists are saying that the minority won’t be represented if states (pure democracy) are the main source of power. The individual rights that the Anti-Federalists had been fighting for would have been useless. In contrary, Anti-Federalists believed that power residing within the state is the best model of government. In the New Constitution Creates a National Government, Will not Abate Foreign Influence, Dangers of Civil War and …show more content…
I believe that they wouldn’t be possible. Their idea of government controlled predominantly by state was already tested in the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation, national government was limited in power while states had the ability to impose taxes, set tariffs and organize armies. Conflicts arose because states wouldn’t be cooperative, the idea of union of will and force was not in effect. In addition, I think that with the government Anti- Federalists proposed, the common people wouldn’t have as great of a voice as someone of a higher rank. In the Federalist No. 39 it’s stated