Anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and Mercy Otis Warren both opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution because they believed the strong national government the document created would have the power to take away the rights of the people. Patrick Henry’s speech at the Virginia ratifying convention in June 1788 and Mercy Otis Warren’s pamphlet, “Observations on the New Constitution,” both explain their authors’ opposition to the new Constitution for a stronger national government. In his speech Henry spoke of the lack of security for the people’s rights under the Constitution. Because of that, he said, the new Constitution should be considered as a source of anxiety and fear. The people needed to be more protective of their rights,
Freedom Even though the colonists did not have a clear understanding of freedom because they were under the rule of a tyrant, the Speech in the Virginia Convention and Crisis #1, written by Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine, both motivated the colonists and congress to aspire and achieve freedom. Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry both used very similar quotes to motivate the colonists into realizing that fighting the British king would grant them freedom at last. No matter how many times the American colonists attempted to resolve things through petitions, remonstrations, and arguments the British were right there, smiling insidiously, but only proved to snare their feet. The colonists were tired of these lies and insults, so this is where Paine and Henry step in.
Patrick Henry's Speech to the Virginia Convention happen a year before The Declaration of Independence write by Thomas Jefferson, both are powerful arguments that made history in American independence, and both have literary devices such as parallelism, and metaphor to persuade their viewer. On the other contrary, Patrick Henry has different persuasive techniques like biblical allusion while The Declaration of Independence has enumeration. Their contents are similar in persuading the audience to rebel. Yet they are different. Their format is similar; they organize in a way the viewer's attention is not just on them but on what they are saying.
The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.
I would imagine that the idea of an independent American was not an easy idea for many to stand by. Many would have probably thought that it was an effort that was not worth the risks, that fighting the kingdom of Britain would bring too heavy a cost. But of course, there were those with enough courage to speak openly about their feelings on their country 's situation. Patrick Henry seemed like a man that was willing to do whatever it took to gain independence. Henry’s letter made me proud to be an American, and to know that these men and women were coming together to fight for a better future.
Compare and Contrast Essay Freedom, equality, and success are all similar but different views in life. In Patrick Henry's speech “Speech to the Virginia convention” he talked about how he believed people could achieve these beliefs. In a like manner so did John F Kennedy in his “inaugural speech”. Both JFK and Patrick Henry viewed freedom, equality, and success in very similar but different ways.
The country has no national defense and no money. The constitution has many progressive concepts that could change the future of the United States. One reason that anti-federalists oppose ratifying the constitution is because they feel like the constitution gives too much power to the congress. Anti-federalists believe that giving too much power to the government would result in something similar to British monarchy.
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
The story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connel is about a big game hunter named Rainsford. He falls out of his ship and can’t swim back. Since there was no way to swim back he had to swim to the fabled “cursed island” where sailors and ships were said to disappear and never come back. As he was swimming, he heard gunshots and a loud, painful, screech, which is forshadowing that is to come. When he gets to the island, he meets General Zaroff, who greets him whole heartily since he recognizes Rainsford as a big game hunter from books he has read.
Let me start with what Antifederalist are: The Antifederalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. Although less well organized than the Federalists, they also had an impressive group of leaders who were especially prominent in state politics. In the approval debate, the Anti-Federalists conflicted the Constitution. Anti-federalists complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights.
Near the end of British control, the American colonists got angry about what was happening in their country and start to spread the idea of self-rule. In 1775, Patrick Henry gave the “Speech in the Virginia Convention” to persuade the representatives to prepare for the impending war with the British and fight for independence. One reason Patrick Henry wants to persuade them into to following him is to prepare for war. He wishes to convince them to prepare for the incoming “storm” which they have been doing “everything that could be done” to avoid the “storm”. He is trying to convince the delegates that the option of war is impossible to hold off any longer and will not wait for the colonists to be ready.
After the Constitution was sent to states for ratification, the people felt the Constitution did not protect the natural rights of the American citizens. The cause or reason for this addition to the Constitution was to ensure that the rights detailed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not thought to be the only possible rights of American citizens. The Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, said that if certain rights weren't specifically granted to the people, the government would easily take over these rights and abuse the people in the country. The Federalists, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, said that the Constitution give the government to do things that were
Antifederalists were against the ratification of the Constitution because they believed in classical republicanism. Monroe and Kersh (2016) define classical republicanism as, “ a democratic idea … that calls on citizens to participate in public affairs, seek the public interest, shun private gain, and defer to natural leaders,” (p. 69). The Antifederalists wanted citizens to take part in government so that public interests would be well represented so that the minority of the population would not have more power than the majority. The Antifederalists had four main reasons why they were against the ratification of the Constitution. Firstly, according to Monroe and Kersh (2016) “it stripped political control from citizens and placed it in a
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.
