...The government is made up of two groups: federalists and anti- federalists. When the time comes to ratification the two groups usually have two very different opinions. Being an Anti- Federalist myself doesn’t mean that I am against the federation. It means that I don’t think we should have a strong central government. “…affirm that bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous.” This quote is completely one sided and is very biased. What it’s saying is that the bill of rights is something to be “scared”. It is very up front with its statement in thinking it’s not worthy enough for the Constitution. “It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions.” This quote says that it’s pretty much pointless to oppose constitutional barriers to being selfish and only about itself. It is actually a lot worse than that because it is like saying that the Constitution is taking power or rights from you by legal force. It talks about how it’s like a germ and it spreads like the flue almost. I strongly disagree with the first quote because I believe that the Bill of Rights is very necessary and that we actually need it! I think this because it increases the protection for individual rights. Many wouldn’t have approved of the...
Words: 396 - Pages: 2
...This unit was about the making of the government of the United States of America. We studied the Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Antifederalists and Federalists. After the Revolutionary War, the colonies were faced with another problem; how were they supposed to rule their country? The states decided to each write constitutions describing the state’s rules(“State…”). The Continental Congress still met and in 1777, decided that they needed a central ruling system(“Articles…”). They loosely tied the state constitutions together in a document titled the Articles of Confederation(“Articles…”). In this document, the power rested within the state governments and there was one vote per state(Articles...). The Articles of Confederation operated with a unicameral government, with no executive or judicial positions(Articles...). The Continental Congress couldn’t make the states give money and resources for the army, only request them(Articles...). The Congress realized that...
Words: 481 - Pages: 2
...Choose whether to argue as a Federalist or as an Anti-Federalist. Review the lesson to make sure you understand their main points. Using quotes from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, write an opinion article for a newspaper, or create a speech podcast to convince people in your state to agree with your position. Include the following in your speech or article: teens shaking hands after playing a game of tennis © 2012 Polka Dot/Thinkstock introductory paragraph that clearly states your position as a Federalist or Anti-Federalist at least two paragraphs describing differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist points of view. Use at least two quotes from each of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. If you would like to explore more of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers to find your own quotes, these sites will be helpful. Federalist Papers American Studies at the University of Virginia The Avalon Project at Yale Law School The Law Center at the University of Oklahoma Anti-Federalist Papers Document Library by Teaching American History at least one paragraph to explain why you disagree with the opposing stance. For example, if you have chosen to argue as a Federalist, you will explain why you disagree with the Anti-Federalist position, using quotes from the documents to support your argument. strong concluding paragraph that summarizes your argument and encourage others to support you Your argument should be created...
Words: 382 - Pages: 2
...What is the most efficient use of power? A strong central government, where little to no power goes to the people, or one where all the power goes to the people and very little power goes to the government? For most people the first option is their own personal nightmares whereas the latter is their ideal. The Federalists wanted to have a system of power where most power went to the government and was favorable by the wealthy, well educated men. The Anti-Federalists were in favor of a system of power where most power went to the people. This option was favorable by farmers. The Antifederalists appealed to the ordinary man, whereas the Federalists appealed to the 1% of the population that owned land. The thought process of the Antifederalists...
Words: 365 - Pages: 2
...If you were to ask me whether I sided with the anti-federalist or the federalist, you might be surprised at what I would say. Maybe not for the reasons you think. In my opinion, I side with the federalist. I’m all for order and I don’t like change so much but to make a country better you need to change some things. Things will constantly be changing and that is fine. A strong central government is very important. The federalist wanted to see a change to improve the country as a whole whereas the anti-federalist wanted to keep the monarchy ways. The anti-federalist and federalist had different views as to how a country should be ran. Both did have ideas to help the country and make it better. Federalist wanted a central federal government, a central bank, and an army. They cared about the governed and not just the ones who govern. In federalist paper no. 39 it says “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from and inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claims for their government and honorable title of republic.” Not only did the federalist care about giving too much power to the important people, they also wanted to have control of the government. It states this in federalist paper no. 59: “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own and consequently...
Words: 545 - Pages: 3
...of power where most power goes to the government and is favorable by the wealthy, well-educated men. The Anti-Federalists are in favor of a system of power where most power goes to the people. This option is favored by farmers. The Antifederalists appeals to the ordinary man, whereas the Federalists appeals to the 1% of the population that own land. The thought process of the Antifederalists appeal more to the common colonist. First, the Antifederalists want to not ratify the Constitution, but rather dd a Bill Of Rights. Led by the greatest colonist minds of Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Samuel Adams, and James Winthrop, son of John Winthrop (Antifederalists). The anti-federalists want a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people and oppose the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are a list of rights that they believe should be accessible to everyone, however rich or poor they were....
Words: 561 - Pages: 3
...Introduction In us history the antifederalist were those who oppose with the constitution in 1788 and the federalist were those who want the constitution because they want to give freedom to the people. The debate happen because the federalist wanted the constitution but the antifederalist didn’t want. For make this happen both need to convince New York. The both teams started to send letters to New York trying to convince it. Federalists and Anti-Federalists were the staunchest opposition politicians during the drafting of the United States Constitution. They argued and disagreed on the legacy of the American Revolution nor in how exactly should the US government be established. The two groups discussed the merits of the Constitution for three years, between 1787 and 1790, during which time the colonies debated ratification. The Federalists finally got their Constitution was ratified by 13 states, while Rhode Island became the last state to ratify the May 29, 1790....
Words: 376 - Pages: 2
...escape the practice of having a single leader. However, it was generally admitted that the Articles of Confederation were a failure because the people had too much voice. The national government could not impose or collect taxes, and they could not forcibly uphold the law to any state. The problem that needed to be overcome was whether the separate states would cast aside their provinciality and become a single body under the federal structure. Those supporting the ratification of the constitution called themselves Federalists, and those against it became known as Antifederalists. Federalists promoted the notion of a strong central government that could keep a national military, place tariffs and tax the people, and uphold laws. They believed their new constitution would strengthen the country and solve its existing problems, readying the nation in case of hostilities against stronger countries. Antifederalists believed that the new constitution would induce a tyrannical government....
Words: 985 - Pages: 4
...In 1788, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of eighty five essays that appeared anonymously in the papers of New York by the name of “Publius,” Where the citizens of New York implore the government to change the new United States Consititution so it would have a positive effect as the nation’s governing documen. As always there is a second opinion for everything, in this case the second opinion is the Antifederalists group. The Antifederalists were people who oppose the approval of the Constitution. Although this group was not as organized as the Federalists, they also had a group with very strong leaders who were specialized in sticking out state politics. The Antifederalists opposed the approval of the U.S Constitution because they worried a strong national government and the absence of protection for individual...
Words: 1023 - Pages: 5
...The Antifederalist were not for the ratification of the constitution. They believed that the government could be easily corrupted. They were big believer of restraining government power. They were against the federalist papers because they had a lack of protection for individual freedoms. They wrote their own essays such as the “Centinel” against the federalist papers and it was to warn about the danger from tyranny. Samuel Bryan, the author of the letters of centinel, wrote: ‘Without presuming upon my own judgment, I cannot think in an unwarrantable presumption to offer my private opinion, and call upon others for their’s…” The Centinel purpose was to include a bill of rights in the new constitution and to adopt those rights. The Antifederalist achieve their goal and the federalists compromise with the bill of rights added to the Constitution. Many people say that the first amendment would not be here without the “intent of the Framers.”. But they did not adopt the first amendment. The Anti-federalist was still scared because the constitution did not really guarantee that the government could take people’s right to worship away. For example, the first amendment does not say that freedoms of speech or press shall not curtail, it only prevents...
Words: 651 - Pages: 3
...What type of government did the Federalists intend on creating? What type of government did the Antifederalists intend on creating? What was the major disagreement between the two factions? The Federalists intended on creating a stronger national government while the Antifederalists intended on creating a weaker national government. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Antifederalists didn’t until the Bill of Rights was added because they felt a powerful central government would threaten the liberties of citizens. 6. What are some criticisms of the separation of powers? Some criticisms of the separation of powers would be that it creates a stalemate when making policies, makes it harder to make decisions quickly and effectively in an emergency, and hurts our global leadership position. 7. Which concepts of government introduced in the Articles of Confederation were maintained in the Constitution? The concept of having a legislative branch persisted and Congress...
Words: 573 - Pages: 3
...Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution The Birth of a Nation Joseph J. Zarzycki United States History – 405 Aimee James June 1, 2014 At the end of the revolutionary war the free states of the Union desired some sort of control that would create a unified country. The first such control came from what was called the Articles of Confederation, essentially our first constitution. This document addressed many issues. How should power be divided between local and national governments? How should laws be made, and by whom? Who should be authorized to govern those laws? How could the government be designed to protect the individual rights of the citizens? The Articles of Confederation, as it turned out, were lacking in several key areas and would be considered a failure. After the shortcomings of the articles began to become apparent, the state delegates tried to revise them; but instead, constructed the Constitution. When creating the Articles of Confederation, thirteen states formed a Confederation referred to as the “League of Friendship” in order to find a solution for common problems and concerns. The Articles of Confederation created a loose Confederation of independent states that gave limited powers to the central government. Each state, regardless of population, would have one vote in the house of Congress. Members of the one-house Congress agreed that the new government should be a unicameral legislature, without an executive branch or...
Words: 1305 - Pages: 6
...Chapter 2 Chapter 2 begins with the description of The Tea Part’s efforts to limit government activity through the use of the constitution. Tea Party members believe that federally funded programs like social security and Medicaid are unconstitutional because they are not permitted by the Constitution. Opponents argued that the Constitution was created to a strong central government. The book gives us this example to illustrate a similar argument between the Federalist and the Antifederalist over the documents ratification as well as many other disputes. The book acknowledges how enduring the constitution has been due to the way it was written. It is extremely general in its language for adaptation and changes. The historical context of the Constitution The book states the first time many colonist questioned British rule was the Stamp Act of 1765. The king imposed tax on many publications and legal documents to help pay for the French and Indian War (1754-1763) claiming that colonists were benefitting from British protection so the tax was fair. Colonist argued otherwise saying that they had no representation in legislation in the British Parliament. After political solutions failed the Continental Congress declared independence from Britain on July 4, 1776. The heavy task of creating a lasting republic was difficult. Post- Revolution the founder’s first attempt limited the government too much in the Articles of Confederation. A small group of leaders agreed that...
Words: 888 - Pages: 4
...the solution to a better government. Of course a central power that would have checks and balances, there would not be any advantages of taking over the government. Many debates are being made, the antifederalists say the constitution is bringing a central government with too much power. “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.“ But even though the constitution gives a certain amount of power to the central government it still created a method of checks and balances to prevent a future dictatorship. Also it is known all the troubles that the country went through by giving supreme power to the states. And the constitution still makes clear the states rights. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” In the constitution the government has power but not enough, it is seen that the governed will have the right to accept or not a governement. Another issue discussed was that the Antifederalists believed that it was necessary to have a certain writes written....
Words: 639 - Pages: 3
...In the summer of 1788 the argument on whether or not to ratify the constitution was starting to intensify. The federalists were in favor of ratification. They believed in a strong central government that could act independent of the states and have their own taxation power in order to pay off debts. The Antifederalists were not in favor of the constitution because it reminded them too much of the British government they fought against in 1776. An Antifederalist named Melancton Smith argued that with the new constitution citizens would not be accurately represented. He mentions how the middle class has a better comprehension of what issues citizens are concerned about. The problem with the federalist view is that the strong central government...
Words: 296 - Pages: 2
