Federalist Vs. Anti-Federalists

Federalist V. Anti-Federalist
Federalist and Anti-Federalist were two factions most commonly known for debating during the transition from the Articles of Confederation of the United States Constitution. Both sides debated many things, including the liberties of a citizen in the United States. I believe that the Anti-Federalist 's ideals best preserved the liberties of Americans. The Anti-Federalists believed that there were three defects of a large republic. First, only a small republic can enjoy a voluntary attachment of the people to the government and a voluntary obedience to the laws (Storing, 16). Second, only a small republic can secure a genuine responsibility of the government to the people (Storing, 16). Finally, only a small republic can form the kind of

The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts and took power from the states, depriving citizens of liberties. The Federalist believed that "The smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens" (Federalist Papers, No. 10). The Anti-Federalist wanted a national representation large enough to secure a substantial representation of the middle class, but not a very large one. They did not want a large national representation because they believed it may derive liberties from local state representatives. The Anti-Federalist wanted a middle class as representatives because by perusing their own interests, they would peruse the interest of most citizens, preserving their