Isabella Carter
The supporters and opponents of the 1787 United States Constitution had vastly differing views on the role of the federal government. Supporters, known as Federalists, believed in a federal system where power was divided between a central government and state governments. They argued for property rights, protection from a strong national government, and consistent regulation of trade. Opponents, known as Anti-Federalists, favoured stronger individual states and were concerned about the concentration of power in a central government, which they likened to the British monarchy. The Anti-Federalists also objected to the lack of term limits for members of Congress and the president, fearing the rise of career politicians. The Federalists, on the other hand, argued for the benefits of experienced leaders during crises.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Supporters of the Constitution | Federalists |
| Opponents of the Constitution | Anti-Federalists |
| Supporters' beliefs | Believed that the Constitution would create a federal system |
| Believed power should be divided between a central government and state governments | |
| Included large landowners who wanted property protection of a strong central government | |
| Included merchants and artisans living in large coastal cities who wanted a federal government that could impose taxes on foreign goods | |
| Included farmers near the coast who wanted a strong central government that could consistently regulate trade | |
| Opponents' beliefs | Accepted the need for a national government but thought the issue was whether the national government or state government would be supreme |
| Feared that a new national government, much like the British monarchy, created too much centralized power and deprived citizens in the various states of the ability to make their own decisions | |
| Feared that a handful of powerful men would gain control of the nation and rule it for as long as they wished | |
| Supporters' states | Smaller states, like Delaware |
| Opponents' states | Larger states, like New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia |
| Supporters' tactics | Very organized and offered a convincing case in their speeches, pamphlets, and debates |
| Promised to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution once it was ratified | |
| Promised to support the amendment that would reserve for the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government | |
| Opponents' tactics | Ran a very negative campaign and offered no alternatives |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Supporters of the Constitution believed in a federal system
Supporters of the Constitution also believed in the need for a strong central government, which would be better able to defend the country than state militias. They argued that a strong central government would provide order and stability, and that re-electing the president and re-appointing senators by state legislatures would create a body of experienced men who could better guide the country through crises.
The Federalists, supporters of the 1787 Constitution, were very organised and offered a convincing case in their speeches, pamphlets, and debates. They promised to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution once it was ratified, and to support an amendment that would reserve for the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored a series of essays, collected and published as The Federalist Papers, to convince Americans, especially New Yorkers, to support the new Constitution. They addressed issues that troubled citizens, such as the fear that the national government would grow too powerful.
Hamilton and Madison's Constitutional Vision: A Contrast
You may want to see also
Opponents, Anti-Federalists, wanted stronger individual states
The opponents of the 1787 Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, wanted stronger individual states and less centralized power. They believed that a new national government would create too much centralized power, mirroring the British monarchy, and deprive citizens in the various states of their ability to make their own decisions. They argued that the Constitution's new government did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president, which could allow a handful of powerful men to rule indefinitely.
Anti-Federalists accepted the need for a national government but believed that the real issue was whether the national government or state governments would be supreme. They wanted to maintain the power of individual states and prevent federal meddling in state affairs. In Massachusetts, for example, Anti-Federalists held a clear majority when the convention met in January 1788, with notable figures such as John Hancock and Sam Adams among them.
The Anti-Federalists' concerns were not without merit. Smaller states, like Delaware, favored the Constitution as it provided equal representation in the Senate and a strong national government with an army, offering better protection than their state militias. On the other hand, larger states had significant power to lose and were reluctant to provide tax money to support the new government.
To address these concerns, Federalists, the supporters of the Constitution, promised to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution once it was ratified and to support amendments that reserved for the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government. James Madison, a leading Federalist, assured citizens that they did not need to fear that the national government would become too powerful. He advocated for a federal system with divided powers between the national and state governments and separate branches within the federal government to prevent any one part from gaining too much power.
Wisconsin v. Yoder: Constitution and Education
You may want to see also
Supporters wanted protection of property rights
Supporters of the 1787 United States Constitution, known as Federalists, believed that a federal system should be created, with power divided between a central government and state governments. They were convinced that a strong central government would protect property rights, an idea that appealed to large landowners, merchants, and artisans in large coastal cities. These supporters also believed that a strong national government with an army at its command would be better equipped to defend the states than their militias.
Federalists also argued that the national government would not become too powerful, as the federal system would divide power between the national and state governments, and within the federal government itself, into separate branches. This would prevent any one part of the government from becoming too strong, and tyranny would be avoided.
In addition, Federalists promised to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution once it was ratified. They also promised to support amendments that would reserve for the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government. These concessions helped to secure the support of some states, such as Massachusetts.
The Federalist Papers, a series of essays authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, were instrumental in making the case for the Constitution. These essays addressed various issues of concern to citizens, including the fear of an overly powerful national government.
Workplace Threats: Harassment or Performance Management?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Opponents feared centralised power
Opponents of the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, feared centralised power and believed that a strong central government would deprive citizens in the various states of the ability to make their own decisions. They thought that the new national government would be too similar to the British monarchy, which had recently been overthrown. Anti-Federalists accepted the need for a national government but believed that the state government should be supreme. They were concerned that without term limits for members of Congress or the president, a handful of powerful men would gain control of the nation and rule indefinitely.
Supporters of the Constitution, on the other hand, were known as Federalists. They believed that the Constitution would create a federal system with power divided between a central government and state governments. Federalists argued that a strong national government would be better able to defend the country than state militias. They also believed that a federal government could impose taxes on foreign goods, consistently regulate trade, and support a war effort.
The debate over centralised power was particularly contentious in larger states such as New York and Massachusetts, which had significant power to lose. In New York, the majority of convention members were Anti-Federalists, and the vote to approve the Constitution was extremely close: thirty in favour to twenty-seven opposed. Similarly, in Massachusetts, the vote was close, with 187 in favour to 168 opposed. Some even claimed that supporters of the Constitution resorted to bribes to ensure approval.
To address concerns about centralised power, Federalists promised to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution once it was ratified. They also pledged to support an amendment that would reserve for the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government. In the end, it was James Madison's promise to add a bill of rights that won over enough Anti-Federalists to secure ratification.
South Carolina's Nullification: Constitutional Justification Explored
You may want to see also
Federalists promised a Bill of Rights
Supporters and opponents of the 1787 United States Constitution were known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists, respectively. Federalists, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, supported a strong central government and believed that the Constitution would create a federal system. They argued that power should be divided between a central government and state governments, with the former predominating. Federalists also believed that a strong national government with an army at its command would be better equipped to defend the states. This view was particularly appealing to smaller states, like Delaware, that wanted equal representation in the Senate and large landowners who sought property protection.
On the other hand, Anti-Federalists opposed the concentration of power in a central government, fearing it would mirror the British monarchy and infringe on the autonomy of individual states. They were concerned about the absence of term limits for members of Congress and the president, arguing that this could lead to a handful of powerful individuals dominating the nation indefinitely. Larger states shared these concerns, as they had significant power to lose and were reluctant to contribute tax money to support the new government.
In the end, the Constitution was narrowly approved, with Federalists promising to attach a Bill of Rights and support amendments that reserved powers for the states. James Madison's determination to add a bill of rights was a crucial factor in securing the Federalists' victory.
The Federalists' vision of a strong central government was driven by their belief in the need for a cohesive and powerful force to overcome the challenges faced by independent states. Madison, in particular, had studied history and political theory extensively, seeking a solution to the political and economic issues confronting America. He advocated for a "middle ground" that balanced state power with the supremacy of the national authority.
The Federalist Papers, a collection of essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, played a significant role in shaping public opinion. These essays addressed citizens' concerns, assuring them that the federal system would prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful and safeguarding against tyranny. The Federalists' promises and persuasive arguments ultimately tipped the scales in favor of the Constitution's ratification.
Rhode Island's Population Stance in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, believed that it would create a federal system with power divided between a central government and state governments. They also believed that a strong national government with an army would be better able to defend smaller states than their state militias could. Large landowners wanted property protection, while merchants and artisans in large coastal cities wanted a federal government that could impose taxes on foreign goods.
Opponents of the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, argued that a strong central government would create too much centralised power, depriving citizens in the various states of the ability to make their own decisions. They also believed that it would allow a handful of powerful men to gain control of the nation and rule indefinitely.
Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored a series of essays, known as The Federalist Papers, to convince Americans to support the new Constitution. They also promised to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution once it was ratified.
Anti-Federalists ran a very negative campaign and offered no alternatives. They also accepted the need for a national government but believed that the real issue was whether the national government or state government would be supreme.
Smaller states, like Delaware, generally supported the Constitution, while larger states such as New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were opposed. In the end, the Constitution was ratified by a narrow majority, with eleven states in favour and two opposed.
