Comparison And Contrast Of The Colonial And British Army

The Anti-Federalists argued that their form of government was more effective. They argued many points that were reasonable. Brutus wrote that he feared that our government would be controlled by a group of elites, and he thought that these elites would abuse the people’s rights by just doing what would only benefit them. Brutus thought once the elites started running our country, that they would be in power for a long time and no one could change their minds on certain views. (Brutus 1).

As the French and Indian War ended, it left the British’s main focus to being the colonies. Controlling the colonies, ruling over the colonies, and taxing the colonies. Little did they know that the colonies had plans of

The Virginia Plan sparked debate over its legislative representative proposals. The plan proposed representation of the states by population. This proposition favored the larger states. The Jersey Plan also known as the smaller state plan rallied for equal representation for all states. A compromise was finally reached. One house of the legislature would consist of two representatives from each state. This satisfied the small states. The second house of the legislature would consist of representatives based on population, thus satisfying the larger states. The establishment of a fair measure to apply taxation and representation in the legislature was described in the Federalist Papers: The Apportionment of Members among the States. The government would conduct a census that would prevent the states from understating their population for taxation and overstating their population for representation. The “Great Compromise” resolving the issue of representation did not mean that the federalists and anti-federalists had come to agreement on the Constitution.

As the war began, it seemed that the British possessed a greater advantage over the unprepared American rebels. The population odds alone were about three British to every one American rebel with around 7.5 million British soldiers against around 2.5 million American colonists. When it came to wealth and military power, the British were in favor. In addition to having a much greater amount of soldiers, the British soldiers were professional trained when compared to the minute amount of poorly trained American militia. While numerous and highly trained, the British also had the necessary money to equip their soldiers with the necessary ammunition, clothes, training, etc. The American soldiers, on the other hand, suffered from lack of supplies, lack of money, no leadership, and the difficult weather conditions. Recruiting, supplying, training, equipping, and paying soldiers were monumental challenges, especially for a nation that was barely forming its first governments. Due to the lack of money, there was a lack of supplies for the soldiers who rarely received their pay

Federalism was the first guard against tyranny. The central government and states both had their own powers but also shared a few. They had trading, conducting foreign relations, declaring war, making immigration laws etc. Local state governments got elections, establishing schools, passing marriage and divorce laws, and regulating in-state business. “The different governments will control each other and at the same time it will be controlled by itself,” said James Madison in the federalist paper #51.

Another difference relates to the economic differences between the supporters of both sides. The Federalists were supported by big business interests that operated within and out of the American borders. They considered the implementation of the constitution as a suitable step towards the government being able to regulate the country’s economy. As a result, they would be able to benefit significantly. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalist union was chiefly dominated by small rural communities and farmers, who believed that the local government had more to offer with regards to their profits and the establishment of a market for their goods (Schultz 127). To these farmers, the state government was more

Federalism was needed in the Constitution to make sure that the national government did not gain too much power. After the revolution, many people feared a monarchy or any form of government in which the central ruling body had

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

The Anti-Federalist put up a long and hard fight, however, they were not as organized as the Federalists. While the Anti- Federalist had great concerns about the Constitution and National government, the Federalist had good responses to combat these concerns. The Federalist were and for the Constitution and feel the Article of Confederation were not worth ratifying, these should be scrapped altogether. They felt that the Articles limited the power of congress, because congress had to request cooperation from the states. Unlike the Anti-Federalist, the Federalist organized quickly, had ratifying conventions, and wrote the Federalist papers to rebut the Anti- Federalist arguments.

Anti-Federalists and Federalists were opinionated groups who tried to sway Americans about the Constitution. Anti-Federalists opposed developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution. Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power. The Federalists disagreed because they wanted a government that was stronger on the national level and that had the Constitution to manage tensions and debts from the Revolution. They both differed in many ways, but one way that they were similar was because they had an impact on the way the Constitution was written.

With a final decision of five to four, the states passed the Great Compromise and it was officially adopted in July 16, 1781. The Great Compromise proposed that the United States would have a bi-cameral legislature instead of an unicameral legislature. There would be two houses: an upper house known as The Senate, and a lower house as The House of Representatives. There would be two senators per state, which favored the equality that small states were longing for. The number of House of Representatives per state would depend on how populous the state was according to the decennial census, giving citizens in large states equal power to citizens of small states. Senators were to be appointed by the State legislatures and would have six-year terms. Whereas the members of The House of Representatives are elected by the public vote and have two-year terms.

3. In the two decades before the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, there was a profound shift in the way many Americans thought and felt about the British government and their colonial governments. Assess the validity of this statement in view of the political and

The Federalists main argument was a large republic would be vulnerable to aggression from foreign powers, internal unrest to the point of civil war absent a Federal Government. Federalists also believed they had an obligation to create a republican government versus a democratic government to protect the Federal government against such situation, because a republican governments elect representatives to make government decisions, republican governments are better equipped to make decision based on national interest, not state or local interest; while a democratic government would be more inclined to base decision on local interests because all citizens in a democratic government have a direct role in government decision making process.

Along with an economic system, Federalist believed in a powerful national government and army. Hamilton wanted the government to be centralized and