Based on historical context, the federalists argued against state sovereignty. Federalists concluded that for the country to join together, the state should not be sovereign but be under a strong central government.
- In contrast, Anti-federalists want the state government to be sovereign from the central government to protect the people's interests.
On President power, Federalists supported the President's power and the executive to carry out federal laws and foreign relation policy.
- In contrast, Anti-federalists believed that President's power would make the presidency become elected monarch with a tendency to become a tyrant.
On political corruption, federalists believed that separation of powers among the branches of government would curb political corruption.
- In contrast, Anti-federalists argued that the three branches of government and the new constitution would only promote political corruption among the elected people.
On taxation, Federalists supported the idea that the central government should have the power to impose taxes for national defense and repayment of national debts.
- In contrast, anti-federalists debated that such power would make the central government impose unfair and repressive taxes.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that Federalists and Anti-Federalists held contrasting views on many key issues in the early period of the United States formation.
Learn more about Federalists here: https://brainly.com/question/18511865
