What were the differences in the opinions of the Federalist and the anti-federalists regarding the Constitution?

Answer 1

There are a couple of important perspectives when discussing the Bill of Rights in reference to the Federalists (Washington/Hamilton/Jay/Madison, et al.) and the anti-Federalists (George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton, et al.). Thomas Jefferson was in Paris the whole time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were considered, though he ended up leading the anti-Federalist party within a couple of years of his return to the States.

Back in 1776 when the states declared independence, they each set up a state constitution and most included a bill of rights. The anti-Federalists were anti-U.S. Constitution because they believed in strong state's rights and a weak central government...therefore the Articles of Confederation were sufficient to their ends. In part, the lack of a Bill of Rights was a reason to delay ratification of the U.S. Constitution. They were trying to call for a second Constitutional Convention before any ratification could proceed.

The Federalists had their hands full in trying to get the U.S. Constitution ratified, so they felt the Constitution should be ratified and then amend it with a bill of rights. The two big states leaders in Virginia and New York were determined to defeat the Constitution. Another Federalist position was: All rights not defined in the Constitution then remain with the states and the people. They were concerned that if you start naming these rights, then it worked in reverse - that you would only have the rights that were listed...it was solved when Amendment #9 was added:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Also, Amendment #10 was included: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This addressed the concerns of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1789 and sent to the states for ratification which was ratified by the states in 1791.

Answer 2

The Anti-Federalists opposed the new U.S. Constitution for numerous reasons. They distrusted large, powerful national governments and believed liberty could only be protected in small republics in which the rulers were closely checked by the public. They believed a large nation could best be governed by a confederation, with local governments having the most control. A strong national government would be distant from the people and not capable of protecting the rights of the citizens. They also favored the addition of a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from the national government. Federalists favored a strong national government with supreme power over state governments. Leaving too much power in the hands of the states would only create another confederacy type of government with little power to act. The rights of citizens would be protected from the government via legislation, the courts, and the Bill of Rights. Federalists distrusted the masses to select the best candidates so they made only the House of Representatives directly elected by the people. Checks and Balances within the Constitution would make sure no one branch became too powerful. The President would have control over the military, necessary for national defense, but could not violate the laws. The Secretary of War would advise the President. The national government needed the power to tax and enforce the laws, or the ills of the Articles would hamper the development, agriculture and industry, of the new nation.

Answer 3

The Federalists were in favor of ratification of the U.S. Constitution rather then the Anti-Federalists, who were not in favor of it because they felt it needed a Bill of Rights.