Differences Between Antifederalist And Federalists
“How did the Federalists and the Antifederalists differ in their visions for what the federal government should be?
The American Revolution ended in 1783. Along with the war, as in any war, a large debt has been incurred. Other issues stymying the newly independent confederation government were relationships with the Indians and the western settlements and trade development and monetary values. The confederation government had its Articles of Confederation, but it was considered a weak document to base a nation by some, while others consider it a protection of liberties. One of the most difficult aspects of the Articles of Confederation was any vote generated would need unanimous vote.
Oddly enough the Articles of Confederation describes the colonies/states as “….a firm league of friendship” and eventually the …show more content…
The new Constitution was written for a strong federal government that would properly manage the large war debt and other tensions that followed the American Revolution. It would control the state’s printing of money eliminating the dire financial crises.
Antifederalists wanted government power to remain within the power of the states, hence, the Articles of Confederation were sufficient for state government. If changes needed to be made, they should be amended and not abandoned. Antifederalists had concerns that “…states would lose influence with the growth in the national government’s power.” (Goldfield) The Federalists wanted a tiered government with checks and balances and the Constitution supported the idea of the Executive, Legislature and Judicial branches. “The president could initiate policy, propose legislation, and veto acts of Congress; he could command the military and direct foreign policy; and he could appoint the entire judiciary, subject to Senate
The American Revolution ended in 1783. Along with the war, as in any war, a large debt has been incurred. Other issues stymying the newly independent confederation government were relationships with the Indians and the western settlements and trade development and monetary values. The confederation government had its Articles of Confederation, but it was considered a weak document to base a nation by some, while others consider it a protection of liberties. One of the most difficult aspects of the Articles of Confederation was any vote generated would need unanimous vote.
Oddly enough the Articles of Confederation describes the colonies/states as “….a firm league of friendship” and eventually the …show more content…
The new Constitution was written for a strong federal government that would properly manage the large war debt and other tensions that followed the American Revolution. It would control the state’s printing of money eliminating the dire financial crises.
Antifederalists wanted government power to remain within the power of the states, hence, the Articles of Confederation were sufficient for state government. If changes needed to be made, they should be amended and not abandoned. Antifederalists had concerns that “…states would lose influence with the growth in the national government’s power.” (Goldfield) The Federalists wanted a tiered government with checks and balances and the Constitution supported the idea of the Executive, Legislature and Judicial branches. “The president could initiate policy, propose legislation, and veto acts of Congress; he could command the military and direct foreign policy; and he could appoint the entire judiciary, subject to Senate