Constitution of the United States - Federalists versus Anti-Federalists - Essay Example

The strong belief of anti-federalists to have an independent, sovereign government for each state laid the basis for opposing ratification of the US Constitution.

The anti-federalists who regarded Constitution as untried were skeptical of its ability to form the finest form of government. They claimed it to be silliness to substitute the existing form of government with an entirely new document. Anti-federalists argued that the constitution characterized twin evils of monarchy and aristocracy rather than the democratic goals of the American Revolution. The most significant reason for the opposition against the ratification of the constitution was the fear of provision for the president’s supreme power. Limited restrictions on the authority of the national government over the states were claimed by anti-federalists and they stressed an authority equal to states rather than a greater one. They claimed the emergence of Congress as aristocratic as the president was supposed to be given much power by the constitution. Members of the anti-federalist group doubted the effectiveness of the national government in controlling a vast country like the United States. They sorted out several problems in the constitution such as an insufficient representation scheme and argued that the constitution would put an end to self-rule in the states. Moreover, they did not believe that Constitution would effectively safeguard individual rights and privileges. The absence of the Bill of Rights was the main argument against the ratification of the United States Constitution. The American citizens feared that the national government would deprive them of their rights as their rights were not guaranteed by Constitution (Ratification). In addition, there emerged the opinion that the ratification of the constitution would adversely affect people’s faith in government. Anti-federalists argued that the diversification of state laws in the United States would threaten the efficiency of the Constitution in governing people effectively. They suggested a friendly relationship and cooperation between various states with differing state laws rather than the union of states powered by a national government (Ratification). They believed that the extreme national authority would affect the economic status and the state laws. Anti-federalists also claimed that liberty could be well preserved by small forms of government as such systems would make government close to the people and thereby work effectively for their betterment. They believed that people would follow the rules and regulations effectively under the authority of smaller governmental forms.

In short, anti-federalists played a vital role in the history of the United States as a correctional force that imbued several common people with a desire for strong state governments. The movement gained the support of many small landowners and farmers headed by famous personalities. They all thought that a strong state government can be more compassionate to them as compared to a central government.