We the People Reading Assignment: Anti-Federalist Position 1. Why do you think Madison suggested having the Constitution ratified by the people in special conventions instead of by state legislatures? As a Federalist, Madison knew that the state legislators would vote against ratifying the Constitution because it would lessen the states’ powers with a stronger national government. As a result, Madison suggested special conventions to prevent this from happening. 2. What objections to the Constitution were held by such Anti-Federalists as Mercy Otis Warren? Anti-Federalists thought that a House of Representatives was not sufficient for the representation of everyone. A government operating at a distance meant that the people can’t keep track of …show more content…
This is because they wrote it to prevent people from taking away property, such as slaves. Furthermore, through their system of government, the elite would have the bigger role. 11. What process did the Philadelphia Convention devise for ratifying the Constitution and why? The Convention devised ratification through state legislatures to make it more likely for the Federalists to win. Otherwise, state legislatures would vote against the Constitution because they wouldn’t want to lose their power. 12. Why did many of the writers in the debates over the Constitution use pseudonyms? The writers used pseudonyms to prevent people from judging the arguments based on the writer’s reputation. 13. What philosophical ideas guided the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to a stronger national government? How did those ideas lead them toward specific objections to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists thought that one specific set of rules for the whole population would not fully represent everyone’s rights. Furthermore, the Anti-Federalists thought that if a government took place far from the people, they would no longer represent
Are you a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? The proportional representation of the people and the government in the pursuit of equality and happiness is thoroughly explained through the Anti-Federalist party. Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of 'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress." By stating this he intended to provide the explanation and root of the problem; the egos of both parties, especially federalists were a constant wall blocking the parties from a resolution The Anti-Federalists were composed of many differential elements.
In the years 1787 and 1788 right after the Constitutional Convention, many people argued over the context of the constitution. The ratification started when the Congress turned the Constitution over to the state legislatures. Because most of the framers had already decided to discard the Articles of Confederation when drafting the Constitution, the lack of people following the articles made the legislatures feel that an unanimous vote was unnecessary. The delegates agreed that approval from only 9 of the 13 states would be adequate to ratify the United States Constitution. However, the process to ratifying the constitution was difficult including groups of people and regions who supported or opposed the ratification.
Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..
This sparked the ratification debate in which the Anti-Federalists expressed their concerns. They felt that the Federal government would gain too much power. To ease their concerns the Federalists, including Madison, promised that if the Anti-Federalists ratified the Constitution all of their worries would be addressed later on. Madison and others also wrote the Federalist papers which proved their stance as Federalists. These papers appeared under anonymous names in New York newspapers.
Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.
The Federalist Papers The Federalist papers consists of 85 essays written in the late 1780s by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. The three authors published it in New York newspapers under the name “Publius” to persuade its citizens to ratify the new U.S constitution. These essays argued in support for the ratification of the new U.S constitution by __________________________________. There are 3 well known federalist papers which are no. 10, no. 45 and no. 51.
Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.
After the Constitution was written by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, all the individual states of America had to be convinced for its ratification. But, opponents, named "Anti-Federalists" opposed against the Constitution's ratification for multiple reasons: some thought that the Constitution would "take away the power from individual states", others desired "an even more centralized government with a single popularly elected government" and finally, some seeked for a Bill of Rights to "protect individuals liberties", in fear of undermining "the claims of slaveholders or other property owners". James Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison therefore wrote the Federalist Papers, eighty-five anonymous essays , in order to reduce the fears of Anti-Federalists and promote the Constitution's ratification. These papers described the importance
The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of
“Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” The title of the article is “The Antifederalists were right” it was written on Sept. 27, 2006 by Gary Galles. The article was about the reasons why antifederalists were right. The Federalists wanted a strong central government.
“Anti-federalist concern that anything not included in the Constitution would not be protected” (Amendment 9). The quote from Amendment 9 proves the Anti-federalists feared a strong central government because, if something was not written in the Constitution then it would
One of the arguments that they proposed was that having a strong government would be remote from the people and the government wouldn't be able to protect the people of their rights. They argued that congress would end up taxing too much and the supreme court would take charge of the state courts. One of their last big arguments was that a large nation could most definitely be best ruled by a confederation. Although most of the ideas the anti-federalists thought were great, the federalists argued differently.
They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Federalists were mostly merchants, bankers manufacturers, and wealthy farm owners. They basically owned land or some type of property and were well-educated. Most of these people lived in urban areas. Anti-Federalists were mostly artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, and poor farmers. They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas.
The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective