In a monarchy, the people have no say in the government, while the anti-federalists wanted to keep our government as it is. They both are most likely alike. This would cause chaos and hostility amongst the citizens of the nation. The federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted some of the state powers for itself. Also, the supported the division of the government into three branches
Anti-Federalist and Federalist
The federalist were for the people and not just in favor for the ruling class. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. Stated in the federalist paper in No.3 "it is essential to such a ...view middle of the document...
The Anti-federalists wanted to stay with the British government. The British was a monarchy at the time. It would be a corrupt government since only the rich could have a say in the government but the poor couldn't. The united states did not approve of it. " And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution, and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government". They believed that a central government is such a bad idea. They feared that a strong central government would take away their freedom and rights. They just wanted a monarchy government. With this government, it means that it would have a higher possibility to fall and weaken unity.
I side with the Federalist, cause the government produced is strong and beneficial to our country. The anti-federalist wanted a monarchy while the federalist wanted a change. At the time the anti-federalist wanted to keep the government as it is, but it was already corrupted by bargains from the wealth.
In conclusion, the anti-federalist way would've led us into corruption. The federalist covered the worries and corruption of the government, while adding the peoples opinions. That's why their is a representative for each state." All men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive ... The ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are unity; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers."