There were numerous differences between the Federalists and the Antifederalists during the era of the Constitutional Convention in the late 1780s. These major differences can be boiled down to an extremely simple idea; the complex argument between the two groups was basically big vs. small. The federalists thought a large, national government was best for the newly freed America, whereas antifederalists sought to convince citizens that the main governing power should remain within the states.
As previously stated, the federalists were strong in the idea that the government should be large. They believed in the total scrapping of the Articles of Confederation and the construction of a new and powerful governing document: one that decided the general rules and regulations of the entire nation as a whole. Federalist Paper No. 10, published under the pseudonym "Publius," brought attention to the importance of ridding the nation of factions. Federalists thought it necessary to have a large governing body in order to "control the violence of faction," meaning the various political opinions of the states. This paper stated that complaints were often heard that the government was too unstable due to rival beliefs of different states. The proposed solution was to provide all citizens with similar opinions and passions to fight for. Federalists stated that without a national government, there would be no way to keep the public good in check; the nation would quickly be divided, and there would be no "law of the land" to resolve disputes between the states or other factions. Another opinion of the federalists was that a Bill of Rights was not a necessity; they were so confident in their idea of a national government that they thought that the individual rights and liberties of the citizens would be upheld naturally by said government. Simply put, federalists looked at the big picture when it came to government.
Antifederalists held the exact opposite beliefs. They saw great benefits in continuing what the Articles of Confederation stood for: a small-sided government in which the states individually held great amounts of power. According to Antifederalist Paper No. 3, written under the name "A Farmer," it was not at all necessary to change the originally drafted Articles in order to keep peace among the nation. Antifederalists feared that the national government would "become masters," while the smaller state governments would "become slaves." This fear of the government become forceful was a recurring statement throughout this Antifederalist document; they state, "Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only," and, "Part of the empire [would] be injured by the operation of general law." Another opinion that this group held was that a Bill of Rights was necessary in order to keep confined limits. All in all, the antifederalists were in favor of a very loose national government and strong influence of the states in governmental decisions.
The quarrels between the federalists and the antifederalists dived deep into many separate issues and ideals, but their arguments could be dwindled down to a simple idea: a large governmental power versus small sections of power.
