Can anyone help me with a social studies speech, please? I really need your help with this one!?

Question

I need some help with my social studies speech. We have to say why it is better to be a Federalist than an anti-Federalist. Can someone please explain to me what Federalists are? And if you think you know why they are better than anti-Federalists, can you please explain to me why? I would also appreciate it if you gave me some websites that tell about Federalists. PLEASE and THANKS!!! I would really appreciate any help with this!!!

Answer 1

The creation of the Constitution entailed hours of debate and compromise, and even when it was completed, some delegates were unhappy with it. The task of fixing the ailing Confederate government was not complete yet; each state had to ratify, or approve, the Constitution. Basically, people divided into two groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Each of their viewpoints is worth examining, as they both have sound reasoning.


The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that:



It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.


There was no bill of rights.


The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.


Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power.


The executive branch held too much power.

Of these complaints, the lack of a bill of rights was the most effective. The American people had just fought a war to defend their rights, and they did not want a intimidating national government taking those rights away again. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification.


The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them:



The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.


A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all.

Overall, the Federalists were more organized in their efforts. By June of 1788, the Constitution was close to ratification. Nine states had ratified it, and only one more (New Hampshire) was needed. To achieve this, the Federalists agreed that once Congress met, it would draft a bill of rights. Finally, New York and Virginia approved, and the Constitution was a reality. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, and yet it has proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people.

Answer 2

You are in the wrong section for that. Look under social science and ask that question again. P&S is too fast of a site. Not that we don't care but all of us have ADD. Good luck

Actually I agree with the guy above me. Whats wrong with the first answer?

Answer 3

try going to google that would help you waaaaaaaaaay better then i could

Answer 4

yup i dunno what you are talking about...sorry i couldnt help...maybe thats why you only got one answer


And I just saw the other answer...whats wrong with it?? its long and has a lot of thought in it....wasn't that good enough

Answer 5

Constitutional Topic: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists and the struggle for ratification. Generally speaking, the federalists were in favor of ratification of the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists were opposed. Note the the Anti-Federalists are often referred to as just Antifederalists (without the hyphen). Either form is generally acceptable.

Other pages of interest would include: Ratification Timeline, Ratification Documents, Ratification Dates and Votes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the Constitutional Convention, the fight for the Constitution had just begun. According to Article 7, conventions in nine states had to ratify the Constitution before it would become effective. Some states were highly in favor of the new Constitution, and within three months, three states, Delaware (with a vote of 30-0), Pennsylvania (46-23), and New Jersey (38-0), had ratified it. Georgia (26-0) and Connecticut (128-40) quickly followed in January, 1788 (for the exact dates of ratification, see The Timeline).

More than half-way there in four months, one might think that the battle was nearly won. But the problem was not with the states that ratified quickly, but with the key states in which ratification was not as certain. Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia were key states, both in terms of population and stature. Debates in Massachusetts were very heated, with impassioned speeches from those on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts was finally won, 187-168, but only after assurances to opponents that the Constitution could have a bill of rights added to it.

After Massachusetts, the remaining states required for ratification did so within a few months, with Maryland (63-11) and South Carolina (149-73) falling in line, and New Hampshire (57-47) casting the deciding vote to reach the required nine states. New York and Virginia still remained, however, and many doubted that the new Constitution could survive without these states.

New York and Virginia

Early in the ratification process, the proponents of the Constitution took the name "Federalists."

Though those who opposed the Constitution actually wanted a more purely federal system (as the Articles provided), they were more or less forced into taking the name "Anti-Federalists." These men had many reasons to oppose the Constitution. They did not feel that a republican form of government could work on a national scale. They also did not feel that the rights of the individual were properly or sufficiently protected by the new Constitution. They saw themselves as the true heirs of the spirit of the Revolution. Some very notable persons in United States history counted themselves Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, George Mason, George Clinton, and Luther Martin.

There were some true philosophical differences between the two camps. In many instances, though, there was also a lot of personal animosity. For example, in New York, George Clinton was a political opponent of John Jay, a prominent Federalist, and also disliked Alexander Hamilton. And in Virginia, Patrick Henry was a political rival of James Madison.

In addition, many letters were written to newspapers under various pseudonyms, like "The Federal Farmer," "Cato," "Brutus," and "Cincinnatus." These letters and several speeches are now known as "The Anti-Federalist Papers."

In response to the speeches and letters of the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists gave their own speeches and wrote their own letters. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison coordinated their efforts and wrote a series of 85 letters under the name "Publius." These letters both explained the new Constitution and answered the charges of the Anti-Federalists. The letters were collected into a volume called "The Federalist," or "The Federalist Papers." Though the influence of The Federalist at the time is questionable, the letters are noted today as classics in political theory. Perhaps of far greater importance were the Federalist stances of George Washington and Ben Franklin, very prominent men both in their day and today. Their opinions carried great weight.

The votes in Virginia and New York were hard-won, and close. Virginia voted 89-79, and New York, a month later, voted 30-27 to ratify. With all the major states now having ratified, confidence was high that the United States under the Constitution would be a success, or, at least, have a fighting chance. The new Congress met, and George Washington became the first President. As suggested by many of the ratifying conventions, one of the first tasks tackled was the writing of a Bill of Rights to be attached to the Constitution. The Bill, Amendments 1-10, eased the minds of many hold-outs. Shortly thereafter, North Carolina ratified (194-77), and lone hold-out, Rhode Island, finally relented and ratified on a close 34-32 vote.

Aftermath

The Federalists were successful in their effort to get the Constitution ratified by all 13 states. The Federalists later established a party known as the Federalist Party. The party backed the views of Hamilton and was a strong force in the early United States. The party, however, was short-lived, dead by 1824.

The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today's Democratic Party.

Federalist party


in U.S. history, the political faction that favored a strong federal government. 1

Origins and Members
In the later years of the Articles of Confederation there was much agitation for a stronger federal union, which was crowned with success when the Constitutional Convention drew up the Constitution of the United States. The men who favored the strong union and who fought for the adoption of the Constitution by the various states were called Federalists, a term made famous in that meaning by the Federalist Papers (see Federalist, The) of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. 2
After the Constitution was adopted and the new government was established under the presidency of George Washington, political division appeared within the cabinet, the opposing groups being headed by Alexander Hamilton and by Thomas Jefferson. The party that emerged to champion Hamilton’s views was the Federalist party. Its opponents, at first called Anti-Federalists, drew together into a Jeffersonian party; first called the Republicans and later the Democratic Republicans, they eventually became known as the Democratic party. Party politics had not yet crystallized when John Adams was elected President, but the choice of Adams was, nevertheless, a modest Federalist victory. 3
The Federalists were conservatives; they favored a strong centralized government, encouragement of industries, attention to the needs of the great merchants and landowners, and establishment of a well-ordered society. In foreign affairs they were pro-British, while the Jeffersonians were pro-French. The members of the Federalist party were mostly wealthy merchants, big property owners in the North, and conservative small farmers and businessmen. Geographically, they were concentrated in New England, with a strong element in the Middle Atlantic states. 4

Federalist Policies
During Washington’s second administration, and under that of John Adams, Federalist domestic policies were given a chance to prove themselves. The young nation’s economy was established on a sound basis, while the governmental structure was expanded and an honest and efficient administrative system was developed. In foreign affairs, however, trouble with France led to virtual warfare in 1798. It led also to the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress ostensibly in response to hostile actions of the French Revolutionary government but actually designed to destroy the Jeffersonians. John Adams, who was a moderate and honest man, followed the course he considered wise, and by rejecting Hamilton’s extreme desires, he caused something of a division in the Federalist ranks. 5

The Triumph of the Jeffersonian Opposition
The Jeffersonians were meanwhile winning popular support not only among Southern landowners but also among the mechanics, workers, and generally the less privileged everywhere. Jefferson showed skill in building his party, and the Jeffersonians were much better at publicity than were the Federalists. 6
The election of 1800 was a Federalist debacle. The Jeffersonians came to power and stayed there, establishing the so-called Virginia dynasty, with James Madison succeeding Jefferson and James Monroe succeeding Madison. The Federalist party remained powerful locally, but increasingly the leadership passed to the reactionaries rather than to the moderates. It tended to be a New England party. 7
This trend was accentuated in the troubled period before the War of 1812. Merchants and shipowners were opposed to the Embargo Act of 1807, which caused considerable economic loss to the seaboard cities, and their feelings were expressed through the Federalist party. The Federalists, however, failed to enlist De Witt Clinton and his followers in New York in their cause, and their challenge in the elections of 1808 was easily overridden by the Jeffersonians. 8

Dissolution of the Party
Opposition to war brought the Federalists the support of Clinton and many others, and the party made a good showing in the election of 1812, winning New England (except for radical Vermont), New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and part of Maryland. They failed, however, in Pennsylvania and lost the election. While the country was at war, the disgruntled merchants of New England, represented by the Essex Junto, contemplated secession and called the Hartford Convention. Thus, paradoxically the Federalists became the champions of states’ rights. 9
The successful issue of the war ruined the party, which became firmly and solely the party of New England conservatives. The so-called era of good feelings followed, and politics became a matter of internal strife within the Democratic party. The Federalist party did not even offer a presidential candidate in 1820, and by the election of 1824 it was virtually dead.

Essay

The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists

When the revolutionary war was over, the American colonists had found themselves free of British domination. Due to the fact that they were free from British control, they wanted to create their own system of government where tyranny would be practically diminished. Originally, the separate states were connected by The Articles of Confederation. But this document gave the central government no power of their own. Because of this, the states had many problems in international politics since they had just found freedom and did not have the respect of other countries. This caused a lot of thinking and it was decided that a document needed to be created to strengthen the central government and at the same time ensuring the safety of the states. So came to be the constitution. The constitution brought about a division between the American people. These two groups were the federalists, who believed that the constitution was good, and the anti-federalists who thought that the constitution would not be able to protect the rights of the people. These two groups had conflicting views but together, they both wanted the same thing. The same thing was that America should be controlled by the people by the principles of federalism.

Both groups, the federalist and anti-federalists recognized the fact that power was being abused. They witnessed what had happened in the war and that their had been negative effects of power and the result was very clear. British vocation had made them very aware of the threat of corruption. Therefore, they wanted to make a government that would ensure the duration of an just republic. The federalists exclaimed that the constitution was the only way they could reach this goal of a just society. As James Wilson had said, the constitution would not give all the power to the legislature unless it was legally written down to ensure power was not mistreated. In the constitution, it does allow congress to make laws that help out the government in the area of execution of foreign powers.

The view of the anti-federalists were obviously different. They believed that the power given to the congress was not safe since it put them too much in control. Hence they created the Bill of Rights to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity and provide for the common defense..." The anti-federalists feared that the actual people would not be fairly represented by their new government since they would have the power to get rid of the individual rights of the people. The Bill of Rights claims it is for and by the people. Especially since America is so large, it does not ensure everyone's opinion would be heard. Many people did not like the idea of having representatives from each state because one man can not bring forth many different opinions. Anti-federalists believe that liberty only is present when there are few people and they can actually get their voice projected. In a large population, like America, the citizens do not get individual freedom and are deprived of their rights.

Yet, Madison a federalist stated that in a small republic, tyranny could be much more assessable since it would be easier to dominate others. Unlike in a large republic which is made up of many views where as it is less chance that a few can dominate others. Even in individual states it is easy to elect officials since people can be easily controlled when there aren't many people. In other word, the more the people, the less chance of bribery and inducement. Another benefit of a larger republic is that there would be a variety of people representing them and their would be many candidates to pick from. Ensuring the highest quality government. In a small republic, options would be very select making it an unfair election.

Besides finding officials to best represent the people, there were many other controversial topics that faced the American people. The topic of taxation brought about many different ideas of what should be. The anti-federalists believed that by forming a new system would be very challenging because that is what they know and use. The first problem they found was that states would not want to have two state taxes. This is unfair to the people. They also argued that a state tax was unfair since each state was different with different needs. This could very well destroy a state economically while other states be fine.

The federalists believed that congress had all the right to have direct taxation in ensure the safety of national security. The claimed that the constitution was created to make sure the sovereign power of the states was protected. The state legislature was responsible to elect two senators and the presidential electoral process.

As stated before, both sides wanted to create a country where the peoples voice was heard and tyranny would not happen, but the way to accomplish this was a conflicting. The topic of power and who got what had torn America apart but soon enough, they formed a perfect solution in which both views where united to protect the citizens rights.

Answer 6

wat???? lol srry never really good wit that at school!