Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalist and anti federalist beliefs
Views of federalists
Anti-federalist beliefs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalist and anti federalist beliefs
Views of federalists
Anti-federalist beliefs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Answer: Massachusetts farmers opposed the Constitution in light of the fact that they felt it ensured exchange more than horticulture, the Federalist Papers were distributed there to pick up backing for it. Virginia and New York would not ratify until the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. In light of the opposition, John Hancock at the Massachusetts ratifying tradition suggested that a bill of rights be included as the first gathering of amendments to the Constitution. Ratification in Massachusetts and pretty much all whatever remains of the uncommitted states relied on upon the comprehension that receiving a bill of rights would be the new government's first request of business. There were the opposition which was made out of assorted
On May 1765, Henry was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and in his time he served in Virginia House of Burgesses; he was a member of the Virginia committee of Correspondence, a delegate to the Virginia Convention, and a delegate to the Virginia Constitution Ratification Convention. Henry was an outspoken critic of the United States Constitution. He feared that because the Constitution was lacking in an outlined Bill of Rights, the country would devolve into a monarchy. He stressed that an overly centralized government could limit the basic rights of the people, thus he argued for a government where the power would lay in the hands of the states In 1788, at the Virginia convention where Henry served as a representative, he voted against the ratification of the Constitution, and delivered the infamous speech known as “Speech against the U.S. Constitution at the Virginia Ratifying Convention”.
After reading both sets of arguments made by Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry in regards to the constitution, their main points are as follows. Patrick Henry strongly felt as though the states should remain separate. He was not pleased with the idea that the constitution was giving the authority to be adapted by the people as opposed to the states, therefore insinuating the possibility of the states losing rights that they might have or ha. Henry was also opposed to the idea that the constitution did nothing to secure the rights of the people. Hamilton’s argument in Federalist 23 are pretty clear that the only way to properly preserve liberty is by creating a strong central government as proposed by the constitution.
There are several points made throughout this document. One starting point made by Patrick Henry was “the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government” (Henry and Mason, 152). With these few words, Henry clearly states his point of view against the ratification of the new constitution. He then continues on by stating that by having a new government, the security, liberty, rights and representation of the people will not be fully and adequately formulated/expressed by this new government (Henry and Mason, 153). Henry supports this by stating his displeasure towards the gentlemen who wrote the constitution by stating “what right had they to say, we, the people?”
What was Charles Beard’s view of the Constitution? How does that view compare to the traditional secondary school textbook view? Be specific. Beard’s view of the Constitution was that it was made by people in the upper and middle classes in order to create a strong federal government that could be used to their advantage. He stated how this would help them since a strong federal government could be used to force the lower classes to pay more money while the upper classes received power and protection.
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…..
Patrick Henry and George Mason both, however, argued against ratification with the rest of the Anti-Federalists. Former Virginia governor Henry had always disapproved of the constitution out
George Mason and Patrick Henry had valid arguments and provided multiple points to support their rejection of the U.S. Constitution. George Mason and Patrick Henry were Anti-Federalist, a political party at the time which argued against the formation of a strong central government. Both Mason and Henry opposed the Constitution because they felt the Constitution would be similar to the British monarchy which had a powerful leader which would enforce unfair laws as well as taxes amongst the state governments and the people in them. George Mason main argument against the Constitution was the creation of a National government which would be strong enough to destroy state governments which represented the people and their interest.
Per Henry “A year ago the minds of our citizens were in perfect repose” before ratification. Henry is concerned with the rights of the people and what would happen to them after ratification. “You ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever.” Henry is objecting to ratification because “one government cannot reign over so extensive a county without absolute despotism.” The government will take over with power of their three branches and limit the people’s right to an extremely low point.
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 interminable discussion over ratification was the first national political debate. Even if the ratification of the United States Constitution had been dismissed, this debate gave an opportunity to national political communities to emerge. The same issues concerned men and women in various parts of the country either to refuse the Constitution or to defend it. One of the most important Anti-Federalist assertions was that the United States was clearly too big to be governed by a single government. According to James Madison who wrote in The Federalist: “Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many chords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same
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
A role of an individual in society can be played many ways, one of them being that people should fight for their country. This can be exhibited in "Speech to the Virginia Convention" by Patrick Henry ,where Henry believes his country should fight for freedom against the British. He is calling on the patriots of Virginia to arm themselves in order to be prepared to fight the British if they do not yield to some of their demands. The author encourages this message by their emotional appeals and literary devices. In the text, the author exposes the audience to prepare for war by conveying them to fight for their country.
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
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.