Federalists and Anti-Federalists worked, debated and compromised for many days, months and years in order to refine our Constitution into what it is today.  Both factions worked hard to have their points and ideals more present in the Constitution.  They disagreed on various topics but they were disagreeing because they wanted to do what was best for the young country.  I believe that the Anti-Federalists ideals on the topics on human nature, the scale of political life and the purpose of government were powerful than the ideals of the Federalists.

            The Anti-Federalists had more faith in the human nature of the common man than the Federalists.  The Anti-Federalists believed that the common man, which accounted for a large majority of the population, were not ambitious and did not want to be bothered with the greed.  The Anti-Federalists believed that the common man did not want to have a hand in politics.  The Anti-Federalists believed that the common man be taught through virtue.  “Moreover, whatever natural tendencies existed toward selfishness and quarrelling could be counteracted through instruction in morality and religion.  Virtue could be taught by republican institutions, laws and customs, and it would grow as citizens participated in the politics of their communities.” (TDD P.36) 

            The Anti-Federalists had less faith in the elites.  It seemed like the Anti-Federalists did not trust the aspirations for power of the elites in America.  “Power they claimed, was intoxicating, especially when the connection between governors and citizens grew distant and the instruments for abuse and corruption were nearby.” (TDD P.36)  Patrick Henry believed that human nature at its worst was not a lawless people; it was “tyranny of rulers.”  The Anti-Federalists would be big opponents of white collar crime in such originations such as Enron, Tyco and WorldCom.  They believed that the elites in these organizations were so power and money hungry that they would put various common citizens through bankruptcy just to make extra multitudes of money.  A modern day Anti-Federalist would be New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.  Attorney General Spitzer fights hard to put an end to and prosecute anyone who commits white collar crime.

            On the other hand the Federalists believed that common man was ignorant and wanted to be against the common good.  The Federalist believed in the ideas of the elites and had no faith in the common man.  A good example to counteract the arguments of the Anti-Federalists was the disaster of hurricane Katrina.  When the Gulf Coast was hit by the storm everything was destroyed and many people left their houses with a good amount of belongings left behind.  After the storm hit various citizens throughout the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana raided local shops where they once shopped and stole from their former neighbors.  This would disprove the Anti-Federalists’ stance on human nature.  However the Anti-Federalists could argue that if the elites in the local, state and federal governments were not so corrupt, greedy and power hungry they would have given aid to these citizens in a timely manner.  The Anti-Federalists would believe that the corruption and lack of compassion of the elites led to the corruption of the common person and drove the person to commit such crimes.

            The Anti-Federalists believed and favored small republics over a large republic.  They believed that a small republic would be more effective than a large federal government because it can respond quicker and be more effective than a large federal government.  “It was only in the small republic, they argued, that the citizens were close enough to their representatives in government to have confidence in them and to hold them accountable for their actions.  Further, only in the small republic could citizens participate in political affairs and, through the practice of active citizenship, develop a broader and less selfish understanding of the common good.” (TDD P.36)  They believed that a large federal government could not possibly cover and meet the needs of the average citizen.  They believed that small central republics would be better because they can better get a grasp on the needs of the people of the area. 

            The Federalists however feared that the ideals of the Anti-Federalists would lead to factions.  Federalists believed that “There would be so much diversity in a large republic that powerful and unjust majority faction was unlikely to form.”  (TDD P.36)  The Anti-Federalist disagreed because they believed a large central government would lead to the government unable to control a large group of people.

            Hurricane Katrina once again makes a good example for the position of the Anti-Federalists.  The aid given to the citizens of the destroyed Gulf Coast region was so slow that citizens responded in outrage.  The citizens of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were without food or water for days.  This lack of vital necessities led to many deaths among the citizens.  President Bush took full responsibility about the lack of resources given to the citizens in the aftermath of the disaster.  This statement ran hollow in the ears of the refugees and destitute. The Anti-Federalists would argue that the federal government did not realize the needs of the citizens and acted too slowly.  The Anti-Federalists would be more in favor of concentrated state governments on this issue because they believed that the small state governments would have acted quicker because they saw the devastation first hand and could gauge the damage more than the federal government.  The Anti-Federalists believed that the aid would mirror the needs of the people affected by the disaster.

            The Anti-Federalists along with the Federalists believed in the importance of liberty and justice for all.  The Anti-Federalists believed that it was the purpose of the government to ensure liberty and justice for all.  “To the Anti-Federalists, liberty was equally precious.  But they emphasized the political rights of the people as much as the people as much as the people’s right to property.  Understood in this way, liberty was endangered less by oppressive majorities than oppressive rulers.”  (TDD P.38) The Anti-Federalists believed that wealth should not be so spread out.  They did not want a small percentage of people with a great amount of wealth because the citizens would desire more material possessions and that would lead to a less united nation.  “The public good would be neglected once Americans cared only about getting rich.”  However the Federalists believed that “Inequality in wealth and power inevitably accompanied liberty.”  (TDD P.38) 

            The Federalists believed in private property and argued that liberty was a possession.  They wanted a strong federal government and a strong military because it would prosper economic growth.  The Anti-Federalists did not want to have powerful military because they believed that it can lead to domestic tyranny and aggression instead of a larger military in which the Federalists believed in.  “The Anti-Federalists also disagreed with the Federalists about how liberty related to economic life and national defense.  Although desiring a prosperous America, they hoped for a simpler and more egalitarian society than the Federalists.”  (TDD P.39)

            The view of the Anti-Federalists can be similar to the ones held by the people opposed to War in Vietnam because like many of the people who opposed the War in Vietnam they wanted America to have a small military presence.  The Anti-Federalists would have preferred America to have smaller armed forces because in order to fight a war of any magnitude you must have an abundance of available troops at the disposal of the military.  The Anti-Federalists would have argued that a strong military might be used by rulers for domestic tyranny and foreign aggression.  A large military has not only gotten us involved in Vietnam but Spain, Mexico, Honduras, Korea, twice in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.  Some of these wars were necessary and some of them however were not.

            The Anti-Federalist position in many ways did not get many of their ideals into the Constitution.  They would have preferred more of their input and less input by the Federalists.  However the Bill of Rights written by James Madison advocated some of the ideals the Anti-Federalists had that were not included in the Constitution.  The Anti-Federalists had a drive to get the ideals into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights enabled them to do it.