Yahoo Web Search

  1. About 495,000 search results
  1. The Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, but their efforts were not entirely in vain. Although many Federalists initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights to ensure passage of the Constitution, they promised to add amendments to it specifically protecting individual liberties.

  2. Jan 15, 2010 · 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.

  3. People also ask

    Who are federalists and who are Anti Federalists?

    What did the Federalists do to oppose the Constitution?

    Which is an example of the system of federalism?

    What was the outcome of the Federalist Party?

    • How Federalism Came to The Constitution
    • A Great Debate Over Power Erupts
    • Federalism Wins The Day
    • The Debate Over The Bill of Rights

    Americans today take federalism for granted, but its inclusion in the Constitution did not come without considerable controversy. The so-called Great Debate over federalism took the spotlight on May 25, 1787, when 55 delegates representing 12 of the original 13 U.S. states gathered in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. New Jersey was the lone state that chose not to send a delegation. The main goal of the Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation, the agreement that governed the 13 colonies and was adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War.

    As one of the most impactful aspects of the Constitution, the concept of federalism was considered extremely innovative—and controversial—in 1787. For one, splitting powers between the national and state governments was in stark contrast with the unitary system of government practiced for centuries in Great Britain. Under such unitary systems, the national government allows local governments very limited powers to govern themselves or their residents. Thus, it is not surprising that Articles of Confederation, coming so soon after the end of Britain’s often tyrannical unitary control of colonial America, provided for an extremely weak national government. Many newly-independent Americans, including some tasked with drafting the new Constitution, simply did not trust a strong national government—a lack of trust that resulted in a Great Debate. Taking place both during the Constitutional Convention and later during the state ratification process, The Great Debate over federalism pitted...

    On September 17, 1787, the proposed Constitution—including its provision for federalism—was signed by 39 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention and sent to the states for ratification. Under Article VII, the new Constitution would not become binding until it had been approved by the legislatures of at least nine of the 13 states. In a purely tactical move, the Federalist supporters of the Constitution began the ratification process in those states where they had encountered little or no opposition, postponing the more difficult states until later. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. Effective March 4, 1789, the United States officially became governed by the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island would be the thirteenth and final state to ratify the Constitution on May 29, 1790.

    Along with the Great Debate over federalism, a controversy arose during the ratification process over the Constitution’s perceived failure to protect the basic rights of American citizens. Led by Massachusetts, several states argued that the new Constitution failed to protect the basic individual rights and freedoms that the British Crown had denied the American colonists—the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, petition, and the press. In addition, these states also objected to their lack of power. In order to ensure ratification, supporters of the Constitution agreed to create and include the Bill of Rights, which, at the time, included twelve rather than 10 amendments. Mainly to appease Anti-Federalists who feared that the U.S. Constitution would give the federal government total control over the states, Federalist leaders agreed to add the Tenth Amendment, which specifies that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Sta...

    • History And Government Expert
  4. In the clash in 1788 over ratification of the Constitution by nine or more state conventions, Federalist supporters battled for a strong union and the adoption of the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists fought against the creation of a stronger national government and sought to leave the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor of the ...

  5. Sep 22, 2020 · But the Federalist views on the Constitution cautioned against hasty changes. It was prudent, instead, to let the merits of the new plan of government reveal themselves over time. Time and experience would prove the wisdom and effectiveness of the new, supreme law of the land.

    • Quotes
    • Controversy
    • Issues
    • Goals

    Over the next few months we will explore through a series of eLessons the debate over ratification of the United States Constitution as discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We look forward to exploring this important debate with you!

    One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned with the preservation of liberty, however, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people. Today, it is easy to accept that the prevailing side was right and claim that, had you been alive, you would have certainly supported ratifying the Constitution. However, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations upon which our government is built, it is important to analyze both the Federalist and Ant-Federalist arguments.

    The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nations liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

    The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to create a more perfect union by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To do so, they advocated for a federal government with specific, delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured.

  1. People also search for