...subject, they feared giving the government so much power that they didn't give it enough to help the country function properly. RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION (FEDS VS. ANTI-FEDS): Due to how weak and ineffective the Articles of Confederation were, delegates met up and decided to recreate it, forming the Constitution. Fierce debates over the ratification of the Constitution between the supporters, known as the Federalists, and those who opposed, known as Anti-Federalists, lasted almost a year. Federalists argued that a strong central government would make the efforts of the Revolution useless, restrict states' rights, and it didn't offer protection of individual rights. The Federalists eventually backed off and included a Bill of Rights, allowing the Constitution to be ratified. American and National Identity is the theme because it's about how the two opposing groups had different views on what the Constitution should contain, therefore resulting in different interpretations of it, and how that led to debates about what should be included in it. KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS: Due to the ratification of the Constitution, interpretations were different between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Because of this, when the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, many Democratic-Republicans were outraged and...
Words: 376 - Pages: 2
...1807-Britian and France imposed trade restriction in order to weaken each other’s economies. Resulting in testing the Americas Neutrality and hurting their trading. Jefferson passed this document restricting neutral trade to the U.S. docs Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists (1780). Stronger central government, state representation from states each 2 representatives, no Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation useless, because states had more power, wanted larger public, and they believed in large farming and industrialization,.. antif federalist, wanted state rights, wanted add the House of Represeantives, Bill of Rights, they thought the aritcles needed to be ratified not taken away completely, smaller public, believed Americas future is small farming Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans (1790s) – Hamiltonians (known as federalist party) vs. the Jeffersonians (Democratic Party) Differences between Federalist stances (1780s) vs. Federalist Party stances (1790s)- Federalist of 1780-Stronger central government, state representation from states each 2 representatives, no Bill of Rights, Articles of Confederation useless, because states had more power, wanted larger public, and they believed in large farming and industrialization.. Federalist Party Stances of (1790)- Led by Alexander Hamilton strong central government led by the wealthy and industry, emphasis on manufacturing ,trading, and shipping.. loose interpretation...
Words: 2158 - Pages: 9
...The Sixth Political System – The Disguised Multi Party Era Political scientists have classified five distinct party systems in American history. First being the Federalist vs. Democratic-Republicans or Antifederalist (Brewer 2012, 26). This was the period to settle the disputes of the post-Independence and the early growing pains of a new nation. Followed by the second period led by an “Era of Good Feeling” (Brewer 2012, 28) and then captured by the Jacksonian Period. Followed by the third system or post-Civil War period. Known for the patronage jobs distributed by huge political machines (Brewer 2012, 35). Followed by the fourth political system or “Era of Reform” (Brewer 2012, 39). Commonly referred to as the “Two Republican Eras” that sandwiched...
Words: 906 - Pages: 4
...Alexander Hamilton Vs Thomas Jefferson Taxation, the Boston tea party, the intolerable acts, and the battle of concord were the most important causes to begin the American Revolution in 1775. Although In 1776, the thirteen colonies declared their independence, they had to fight for their independence and get their freedom from British rule. The Nations faced a weak political system after the revolution which led to many serious issues and problems. The thirteen colonies were agreed by what called the Articles of Confederation during the war. Even though the Articles of Confederation was done to create the congress, the central government was not recognized by the Article of Confederation. Moreover, the courts and the law as well was not created. The weakness of the system was obvious after the ending of the...
Words: 463 - Pages: 2
...presidents in history. The Bill of Rights in my mind was one of the most important documents created in US history. I think that it was 100% needed and it started or was part of the constitution which is still used up to this day which just shows the amount of significance this document had in history. The French were extremely mad with Jay’s treaty and they had a right to be! France was upset because this could form an alliance between Britain and the US where Britain is France’s foe. I don’t think it was a good move by the French to take over and eventually destroy US vessels. I think there could have been a better way to do that. The Federalists made a good play with the Sedition act because they set it to expire exactly at 1801 so it couldn’t be used against them. The act would have never gone into place if the Supreme court wasn’t filled with Federalists. I don’t think it was right for the to get rid of free...
Words: 832 - Pages: 4
...CHAPTER 5 The American Revolution, 1763-1783 Chapter Study Outline I. The crisis begins A. Pre-1763 consolidation of imperial authority B. Emerging split over British-colonial relations 1. British perspective a. Subordinate position of colonies b. Obligation of colonies to share in cost of empire c. "Virtual representation" 2. American perspective a. Equality of colonies and mother country b. No taxation without representation C. Initial skirmishes 1. Writs of assistance against smuggling 2. Proclamation of 1763 3. Sugar Act 4. Revenue Act 5. Currency Act D. Stamp Act crisis 1. Provisions of Stamp Act 2. Indignation in colonies 3. Taxation and representation; increasing opposition a. Virginia resolutions b. Stamp Act Congress c. Boycott of British goods d. Public demonstrations e. Committees of Correspondence f. Sons of Liberty g. Crowd actions 4. Breadth of opposition a. Colonial elites b. Middling ranks c. Laboring classes 5. Repeal of Stamp Act; passage of Declaratory Act E. Internal colonial disputes 1. Tenant uprising in Hudson Valley 2. Tenant uprising in Green Mountains 3. Regulators in South Carolina 4. Regulators in North Carolina II. The road to revolution A. Townshend crisis 1. Provisions of Townshend duties 2. Colonial response, home-spun virtue a. Revival of boycott on British goods b. American-made goods as symbol of resistance c. Reawakening of popular protest B. Boston Massacre 1. Stationing of troops in Boston 2...
Words: 3043 - Pages: 13
...2011-12-13 United States Government Political parties & interests groups Political Parties * American political parties do not have clear programs, regular members, annual meetings, party leaders don’t decide who will run for election, etc. – the ideology of American parties is not very distinctive – they are electoral machines – they help people get elected to Congress and help us organize our thinking. * Political parties have existed since the first decade of the new government’s existence. Americans have always had ambivalent feelings about them. * Parties are necessary, and they perform vital functions, they are crucial institutions when it comes to organizing competition when it comes to elections, structuring the thinking of the society. If they help us distinguish various political sides, we can start identifying with them (liberal, conservative) * Ad-hoc coalitions – built in order to pass a specific bill. Party functions: * Organize the competition * Unify the electorate * Inspire and inform voters * Translate preferences into policy * Provide loyal opposition * Organize Government * Help Govern * Act as Watchdogs * Nominate Candidates * Ensure Candidate Quality * Winner takes all election system – if you have to be big to win, it makes no sense for small parties to function. * Party systems – Multiparty and Two Party System. * Minor parties: Persistence and Frustration * American parties...
Words: 1802 - Pages: 8
...small shop workers. However, after the war, the new nation was in debt because of all the money it borrowed to fight the war. The Revolution was very important from a social aspect too. It showed the world that the strong and mighty army of England was in fact vulnerable. It created an alliance with France and many other countries. It would also be the foundation of our alliance with our greatest ally (Great Britain) in centuries to come. The American revolution was not just a war. It was the war that gave our country independence. The actions of our Founding Fathers set a precedent for almost all future leaders. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Most people think that the U.S. constitution was just ratified and there was no arguments over its passing. In fact there was almost enough opposition that it came very close to not being passed. It was the Hamiltonians vs. the Jeffersonians in almost all cases. Even before the United States Constitution was ratified there was debate over whether or not to have a strict interpretation or a loose one. There was also debate over a State’s right...
Words: 419 - Pages: 2
...Court (judiciary) which acts as safeguards to counterbalance each other. The appearance of the congress has changed significantly since Independence. At its beginning it consisted of a party of Federalists who believed in maintaining a strong central government while it now consists of the Republican and Democratic parties served by self-serving “career” politicians guided by the interest of their districts over the country. “Government created because of the passion of men does not conform to dictates of reason and justice”. (Hamilton) Alexander Hamilton was a staunch believer in the power of the federal government in a time when states had large debts, the military was weak and the influence of foreign powers threatened the thirteen colonies. In this timeframe it was widely believed that an aristocratic minority could take care of the interests of the majority. In the interest of a stronger federal government the framers even had to tolerate the southern slave owning states to maintain a robust alliance of a united thirteen states (Dahl). The power of the government to some extent was reduced in a few years due to growing demand of individualism and non-interference from government. This led to the complete decline of the Federalists and the emergence of the Republicans who stood for individual rights and greater autonomy of states. Eventually a resurgence of the center happened during Roosevelt’s terms in the 1930’s and 1940’s.Due to the increased suffering due to...
Words: 945 - Pages: 4
... A Critical look at Barack Obama and the democratic party. Charles Kerber POLS 202 9AM American Government Livingston This paper will take a critical look at the history of the democratic party, its most recent 2012 election, its current presidential candidate Barack Obama, and the latest platform. While the paper may read as being highly critical of President Obama, it should be caveated by the fact that this is an extremely trying time in the history of the United States, and the government is under considerable pressures from outside terrorism threats and international relations, to severe recession and domestic economic concerns. Nevertheless, one must look critically at President Obama, and answer has he really given us “change we can believe in”? Biography & history The Democratic party went through a number of iterations before it became the current democratic party. The party began as the anti federalists under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Thomas Jefferson a former secretary of state under George Washington's administration who had resigned to protest the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton. These two rivals would become the basis of the first two political parties of the United States. Alexander Hamilton favored the constitution, the creation of a national bank and repayment of the revolutionary war debt with federal funds. Under this philosophy they would name themselves Federalists, for their leaders support of ratifying the constitution...
Words: 3232 - Pages: 13
...1803 // Marbury Vs. Madison In result of the Judiciary Act of 1801, John Adams rushed to fill as many judiciary positions with federalist views. The new congress and his predecessor were to be a majority controlled by Democratic Republicans, he saw this as a last ditch effort to have at least on branch controlled by Federalists. This made for what is now known as the “midnight appointments.” He did make one mistake which was filing the last order during the time period in which Adams had no such authority. The person who did have power during this period did not solidify Marbury’s claim to his judiciary spot. Bringing us to the influential case which is Marbury Vs. Madison which begged the question: “What power did the Judicial Branch have?” The significance of this case was that it amplified the ideas of judicial review and made the branch a coequal to other branches. Previously, the powers of the branch were restricted to the constitutionality of state laws, something that is not as influential in comparison to other branch roles. John Marshall did go a step ahead and highlighted judicial review, stating its necessity in maintaining balance of checking federal...
Words: 1181 - Pages: 5
...Marbury vs. Madison was a case heard by the Supreme Court that greatly verified the need for accountability of governmental power through checks and balances….. specifically that of judicial review. Starting with the key players in this case, Marbury was a man who was to be appointed as the Justice of the Peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia by President Adams. Madison was the new Secretary of State appointed during Jefferson’s term who withheld Marbury’s (as well as others) petition for commission when Jefferson assumed office, as requested by the president. Marshall was the Chief of Justice, previously Adams Secretary of state. He made and wrote the decision to overturn the act of congress that wrote the principle of judicial review and thusly made the decision against giving Marbury his commission. As for the story. Both the first and second president were federalists. During Adams term, he created new positions for judgeships within the executive branch then in an attempt to keep the federalist influence he appointed loyal federalists to these positions days before the third president took office. Jefferson was a democratic republican. The catch was that though these positions were appointed to specific people and approved by senate, the letters were not delivered to the appointed judges and thusly unofficial. Jefferson was frustrated by this “packing” of the judiciary (pg 63) and ordered that the letters not delivered after his inauguration be voided, one...
Words: 795 - Pages: 4
...Topeka Board of Education occurred in 1954 in Topeka, Kansas. While this case had more of a social impact, it still is a landmark Supreme Court case because the a court once again stretched its legal reach to encompass another aspect of American government. To introduce this case, you must know that after the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Consitution freed African Americans from slavery, gave them the rights of any other U.S. citizen, and gave them the right to vote. However, the extent of these amendments were hotly debated, and a previous court ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson ruled that African Americans could have separate public facilities like bathrooms and schools as long as they were equal. This interpretation, now known as segregation, was unconstitutional, however, because the facilities were rarely if ever equal. So in 1953 the parents of a little black girl in Topeka, Arkansas took their case to the Supreme Court to argue for her admission into a white school. The Supreme Court had to deliberate on the issue for two years, but Chief Justice Earl Warren finally helped the court make a unanimous decision that segregation in schools was unconstitutional. This case had a huge impact on the Civil Rights a movement of the 1950s and 1960s, but it also is another great example of how the Judicial Branch...
Words: 975 - Pages: 4
...Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations that shaped the Nation Thomas Jefferson was born in affluence to his father, Peter Jefferson, a rising young planter in the Virginia colony, and his mother, Jane Randolph, who held a high status within the colony as well. Due to his father’s prosperity Jefferson was afforded the absolute best in the ways of education, starting with private tutors at the age of five, then moving on to learn how to read Greek and Roman and finally taking his studies to the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg which he would say is “…what probably fixed the destinies of my life…” (5). On the other side of the spectrum, Alexander Hamilton son of James Hamilton, a Scotsman of a well-known family but never flourished on his own, and his mother, Rachel Fawcett Lavien, who had left her husband to live with James Hamilton. Hamilton’s early life was just that his father “drifted away” and his mother passed in 1768. Lacking wealth, Hamilton’s educational opportunities in his young life were nonexistent; however this did not stop him from gaining a vast knowledge of business and finance that he would later on use in his services to President George Washington. In addition to these politically influential men’s different early lives, they have their differences in opinions. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were not just on different issues that shaped the nation, but they were at the head of those differences. Jefferson distrusted the federal government...
Words: 1128 - Pages: 5
...two party system-Republican Party or the Democratic Party. The American political process consists of a two party system. Now and then a third party candidate may jump in the presidential race. The third party candidate normally brings new ideas or they choose to support a particular issue to gain national attention. Third parties have never been successful at winning the race but they have had a major influence on the outcome. Some of the obstacles that third parties face are the fact that a third party candidate has not won an election since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln did. Because third parties never win voters are less likely to vote for a third party feeling that it is a waste of a vote. According to historian Michael Beschloss third parties often organize themselves around a single personality or a single issue. (pbs.org) by only being focused on an individual issue this can lead to less popularity. Third party candidates normally receive less media attention and lack funding for their presidential campaign. Their lack of funding is due to the campaign finance rules with government funding. A lot of times third parties are left to funding their own campaigns. If a third party were to win a presidential election I think it would send a message to all politicians that we the people of the United States have decided to vote on what is better for our country and not just continue with the normal standard of voting Republican or Democrat. Issues with State vs. Federal Government...
Words: 738 - Pages: 3
