Anti Federalism Dbq

It could be argued that as the history of the United States has unfolded, the ratification of the Constitution was relatively successful. One might also argue that the Document Americans hold so sacred was ratified with the wrong intent in the first place. Nonetheless, the state representatives chosen to vote on the ratification had a substantial task in front of them. Had I been one of those representatives, I believe that I would have voted against the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of rights left in the hands of individual states, the absence of term regulations for elected presidents, and the turn away from a truly republican governmental system. Based on the political climate of the late 1700s surrounding the state representatives

This system would limit state voting power and turn rely on an electoral college to make decisions regarding presidential elections, and a cabinet of representatives, as seen at the continental congress, to make come up with the verdict on national dilemmas, primarily decisions concerning taxation and the judicial system. Therein lies the problem. As an anti-federalist I would be largely concerned with local issues and supporting the people and economy of my respective state, as opposed to national trade and productivity. This issue will arise again on the topic of republicanism as a focus of anti-federalists. In opposition to any ratifications, I would have hoped to see power lie within state governments with an overarching national government that regulate trade and the national economy, but not so much state level affairs. This is due to the varying interests of the thirteen states of the time. While states like Delaware are coastal and open to trade with the rest of the world to provide employment and productivity, states like New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania were dominated by agriculture. If the country were to sit under a system focused on international affairs, these farmers would have a reduced income and the state wealth would decrease. Thus, I would feel obliged to take these

While the Constitution established a presidency which did not grant ultimate power, the foregoing of a term limit enabled an individual to lead a country for a lifetime. Individuals like Alexander Hamilton would have loves this, as he was in favor of a lifelong presidency once elected, and believed he may be a candidate for that position. However, this had the potential to turn into a monarchy, or even a tyranny. The biggest fear of the anti-federalists was returning to the same stagnant political situation they faced back in Britain. I definitely would have had this fear, and consequentially seen this flaw, meaning that I would have had a significant gripe with the Constitution being ratified and not taking this into consideration. Drawing this back to the first issue, state power, of a leader were to somehow become tyrannical, all state power would be diminished, thus escalating the issue I would be attempting to