What were the objections of the anti-federalists to the Constitution?
The Constitution gave the federal government many powers they didn't like. They lost their support, due to some smart maneuvering by the federalists.
Major leader of the federalist effort to ratify the Constitution...?
James Madison
What strategies did the federalists employ to win the struggle for ratification of the constitution?
You are speaking about two separate although related things: the Federalists and the "Federalist Papers". However, they are both related to the ratification (approval) process of the Constitution. Only after hours of debates and compromises was the Constitution completed, but still needed to be ratified. Still, some delegates felt it was insufficient. People divided into basically two groups in their thoughts about it: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. They argued that it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments. Also, there was no bill of rights. The Federalists wanted a strong cental government divided into three independent but equal branches with a sytem of checks and balances so no one branch can gain power, thereby protecting the rights of the people. Fearing that the Constitution would not be ratified, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison wrote a series of 85 essays called the "Federalist Papers". These essays were printed in new York newspapes over a period of months during the ratification process By June of 1788, the Constitution was close to ratification. Nine states had ratified it, and only one more (New Hampshire) was needed. To achieve this, the Federalists agreed that once Congress met, it would draft a bill of rights. Finally, New York and Virginia approved, and the Constitution was a reality. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, and yet it has proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people. The "Federalist Papers" is an important American contribution to political philosophy and remains a classic today. It is also a great and authoritative commentary on the Constitution. For more detailed information about the Federalist Papers, please refer to the following website: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.ht...
What arguments did the Anti-Federalists make against ratifying the Constitution?
I googled this for you and couldn't find the answer. Sorry.
What were the federalists position on the ratification of the constitution?
The federalists wanted more control given to the government. They wanted maximum government. They and the Anti-Federalists who wanted limited government were actually brought together in the ratification process by the compromises that created the Bill of Rights.
Conflict between federalists & anti-feds over ratification of constitution?
Someone who was pro ratification was referred to as a Federalist. Someone who was anti ratification was referred to as an anti-federalist. Those two groups eventually became the foundation of our country's first two political parties. The Federalists became the Whigs and the Anti-Federalists became known as Democratic Republicans (and have had many other names as well...)
How did Federalists and Anti-Federalists divide over the ratification of the Constitution? What compromises made the Constitution possible?
Bill od Rights and oddly the allowance of the U.S. Government to declare war without the States agreement. In exchange they were banned from having a standing army at all or funding the army formed from the State organized volunteers for more than 2 years consecutively. (This was the common understanding at the time according to the letters and journals from the discussions.)
Why were the Anti-Federalists opposed to the ratification of the US constitution?
They thought that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. There were also fears among them that the new document was not explicit enough in its delineation of powers and that its vagueness would be exploited at every turn by the federal government.History is on their side.It is now commonly assumed that by such devices as “implied powers” or the appeals to the commerce clause, the federal government has the power to intervene in just about every facet of our lives. For example, no where does the Constitution give the Congress the power to create a Department of Eduction, and yet we have one. Proponents of loose constructionism point to the federal government’s power to “provide for the general welfare.” Yet in Federalist #41 Madison explicitly states that the so-called general welfare clause was nothing more than a preamble to the following delegation of powers.Here he is in his own words:But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars (emphasis mine).The list of particulars he’s referring to are from Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the “enumerated powers.” Now, to seal the deal we have the tenth amendment. It states, “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.”So there we have it, the Department of Education is most certainly unconstitutional, as is just about everything the federal government does these days, and the fears the anti-Federalist had that the Constitution would ultimately end in the subordination of the States to the central government has been borne out.