If you were alive during the period of 1787-1790, would you consider yourself a Federalist and Anti-Federalist? Cite reasons why you agree with one group more than the other. Make sure you explain why both groups had valid points.
I would classify myself as a Federalist because I agree with the constitution and it's purpose. Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation and not adopt a new form of government. However the Articles of Confederation was flawed and the Constitution was just a revised and better thought out version of the Articles of Confederation. Also, the Constitution encompasses some of our most valued rights as "We the People" For Example - Equality for every race Freedom of Religion Freedom of speech The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ETC.
During this time period, I would consider myself a Ferderalist. Mainly because I support giving the power to the people rather than just an overbearing central government. I support the constitiution and what it stands for. The constitution and government was formed to all in all to protect the people. While Anti- Federalists wanted nothing more than to take over and control all matters of the people. In addition, they supported the Articles of Confederation because it gave more power to the central government rather than the people. The Anit-Federalists were also against the adoption of the constitution, they believed it would take away their power to control the states.
I agree with schiller_3. I agree because the Articles of Confederation were basic giudelines and the Constitution took those guide lines and elaborated to give all states more specific rules to govern themselves.
I disagree with fishbowlsurfer. I don't agree how they said they would be against those "demi-gods." I don't think that was the right choice of words and it can confuse people easily.
I would definently be a Federalist I would want a divison in power amoung all of the states so that we would all be equal. This would allow the power of the government to be limited, so they could not overpower the citizens. Anti-Federalist did not want a Federation they thought that the Articles were ok by themselves. They also had a good point the Articles of Confederation were going to be ammended anyways so why not keept them. Even though the Articles were going to be renewed or fixed, Federalist still thought that they would be to weak.
In 1787 the federalists were initially supporters of the Constitution. They favored federalism, which describes a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between Nation and state. In general , the anti-federalists opposed the constitution. They feared the growing power of the central government and promoted the addition of a Bill of Rights. Since Federalism is based on securing democracy and human rights, I classify myself as a Federalist. Through the system of checks and balances in governmental power,there is a maintenance of a limited national government. The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Yet I also agree with the Anti-Federalist in the idea that the Bill of Rights proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people.
I agree with most of all the blogs. I think that Federalists are essential in the idea of equality and a limited government, however I'd also like to point out the significance of the Bill of Rights. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification. Therefore, Anti-federalism was no completely wrong. It was right in the sense that the American people had just fought a war to defend their rights, and they did not want a intimidating national government taking those rights away again. The 1780s proved to be a time where people were more concerned with securing their own right rather than giving the government power.
i would be a federalist because i would agree on the constitution because during that time America did not have a correct set of rules. the articles of confederation was made weak and we needed a strong set of rules
If I was alive during the period of 1787-1790, I believe that I would have been an anti-federalist, or otherwise known as a Republican. The Federalists had many good points such as advocating a strong central government, which in some cases can be good because then it would have the power to crush democratic excesses such as Shay's Rebellion. In addition, a strong central government promoted foreign trade which would provide many foreign products to the people of the country. However, I don't like the idea that the government protects only the lives and estates of the wealthy. The wealthy, no matter what time period, are only a minority of the population. The majority of the population usually mostly consists of the middle class and the poor. I believe that people of the country should be protected, not just the wealthy. The major reasons that would have made me an anti-federalist was their belief that the government should govern less, and the individual states should retain the bulk of the power. There the people, in intimate contact with local affairs, could keep a more vigilant eye on their public servants. If individual states manage their own people, they would better be able to tend to their needs than the central government who has to manage the whole country. Basically, I believe that it is better to have one big government, and smaller subdivisions within it. That, I believe, is the best way to run a country smoothly and peacefully. After all, a central government might lead to a dictatorship and America would have become a second Europe.
tinkerbell09 Maybe I misread the text, but weren't the federalists for a central government and the anti-federalists for the "power to the people?"
frank kurera I agree (even though I'm for anti-federalists) that the Articles of Confederation were weak because then the government didn't have the power to tax people, and even though everybody hates taxes, they still need to be paid in order to keep the country moving.
During this time period,i would classify myself as a federalist,because i strongly believe in the rights granted from the articles of confederation.without the articles,our "pursuit of happiness," would end up being a pursuit to fit societys laws and guidlines.Im independent,and having to follow daily regulations and not being able to make a difference and stand up for myself would create protest.
yet,anti federalists believed in the government powering over everyong instead of soverign states,which at times could control life with better organization.
i believe that with an anti federalist upbringing,power would become over confidence,resulting in a dictorial nation.
"However, I don't like the idea that the government protects only the lives and estates of the wealthy. The wealthy, no matter what time period, are only a minority of the population. The majority of the population usually mostly consists of the middle class and the poor. I believe that people of the country should be protected, not just the wealthy,"states Mizchinkyeyez.
after reading this extract from her comment,i debate federalist outlooks.the population is/has been a middle class,and fitting needs of only upper class wouldnt be fair.
righteousprofit stated "I would definently be a Federalist I would want a divison in power amoung all of the states so that we would all be equal," i completly agree with that statement,it basically sums up my opinion.
During this timr period I would consider myself as a Federalist mainly because I respect and support what the founding fathers were trying to do with the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were almost like an outline for the Constitution but they were very weak and not many people followed it. The Constitution preserves the natural rights of the people, states that the people give the government the power to govern them, limits federal powers and states powers, and includes the Bill of Rights which upholds our most valued rights. It also endures that the government cannot take these away. Perhaps ratify them but they cannot be taken away. Federalists supported the Consitiution because it outlined such powers and supported equality. Anti-Federalists did not like the idea of the Constitution mainly because of their belief that the government should govern less and the states should be able to govern over the people. They believed that the people would have more representation and that the states would be able to keep a better eye on the people as well as tend to a smaller group of people's needs at a time rather than a country as a whole. Although Anti-Federalists bashed the formation of the Constitution and supported the Articles of Confederation they did propose the addition of the Bill of Rights in to the Constitution ensuring that the government was aware of peoples rights. Anti-federalists believed in a some what loose government, almost like they liked the idea of a government but the power belongs to the people. Where as Federalists believed that the government should govern them but their voices must still be heard through representation.
Jenna Porretta- I don't believe that if the majority of the people had been anti-federalists and had achieved what they believed was right, that the nation would come under dictorial rule. I believe that our government would have been entirely way to weak to govern it's people and the pressure from France, Britain, and Spain would have resulted in another war over the weaker United States. We then would have been made back into colonies and put under a harsh rule by another country.
Mizchinkyeyez I somewhat agree with the idea that the governemtn rules as a whole but there are smaller subdivisions within. I also believe that this would result in a mere corruption of power, because when you have many subdivisions of the government governing mass amounts of people you may find that arguements will arise and the government having little knowledge what is happening in these subdivisions will not be able to come in a solve the problems. This could possibly lead to a mass revolt against this form of government and we'd be back at square one.
I would consider myself a Federalist because they were supporters of the Constitution and I think that I would have supported it. The Anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation, but there were many negative effects that came out of them. Therefore I would want to change them just as the federalists, that were for more central government powers, did.
If I was in that time period i would be a federalist because they supported the adoption of the constituion they believed in a strong federal govt. The constution is a very important document that gives rights to the people. In a way the anti federalist had a a point because they were in favor of the bill rights which is a very free document that gives freedom of speech and others. They both had strong ideas it would of being better if they would of put the ideas together and they would had made a constituion and bill of rights.
I agree with tinkerbell09 the ferealist supported giving power to the people inested of a govt. Which is what we have now people have the right to vote and elect who they want. I also agree with frank kurera because the articles of confederation was weak. Well atleast it was a start for something that led to the start of the constitution
I would probably be a anti-federalist because I want my rights to be asured. Federalists had a good point with accepting what all the states finally agreed on, but Anti-federalists also did not want all the power going to the government without limitations.
I agree with MizChinkyEyez because mostly the wealthy were favored with the constitution. The wealthy had power with the constitution because they had more rights and abilities than the lower classes.
If I was living in the United States during the period of 1787-1790, I would consider myself a federalist. The reason is because I agree with constitution and all the freedoms that it offers. For example some of the freedoms are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. I also like how the constitution set up a strong central government and how the people also have a say in the government. Another great thing about the constitution is the fact that it is the oldest form of government in the entire world and it is still used till this day. The anti-federalists were the people who did not agree with the constitution and wanted to keep the Article of Confederation. The Article of Confederation was loosely made and did not give as many freedoms as the constitution. This is why I would consider myself a federalist.
I agree with schiller_3 because we both agree that the constitution is better because it gives us, the people, more freedom.
Oh yeah I forgot one more, I also have to disagree with fish bowl surfer because he states, “I probably wouldn't be very rich or educated, so I’d be against those demi-gods. I'd probably feel like they were screwing me over.” In reality the federalist favored the constitution which gives us more freedoms so; they were not trying to “screwing you over”, they were actually trying to help.
I would put myself as a federalist during those years because I believe that although states should have power, they should have a government which will keep things intact and make sure states do not go out of control. The one thing that sums up much of that is the Consitution. It controls the power and makes sure it is evenly distributed and also makes sure that we have the amendments and rights in order to create a free country.
In response to schiller_3, I agree that the Constitution does replace the Articles of Confederation by being a more revised version that is definitely much better.
In response to hend, I also agree that the Bill of Rights was necessary in both the Federalist and Anti-fed point of view simply because it protected the rights of citizens.
I would be a federalist. I think the articles of confederation were incomplete.They didnt have everything needed to keep a country alive. The constitution does though. It gives power to both state and government. That way we wouldnt end up with a monarch and we had a central government to keep the US together.
mizchinkyeyez does have a good point though about the government protecting the lives and estates of the wealthy. That would be a turn off of the federalist idea as well.
But I still would have to agree with princess**** with being a federalist. She says that she would be one because they agreed with constitution and I do to.
I would be a Federalist because I agree with the idea of a Constitution because it is necessary to unite the country. A central government needs to govern the United States because it was such a young nation. If each state governs themselves, then eventually they would want to secede or become their own nation.
I think that "midgetsXruleXtheXworld91" has a good point when she/he/they/him/her/I dunno states that with a constitution, "we wouldn't end up with a monarch and we had a central government to keep the US together". A main concern in this time period was unification. Federalist believed that with a balanced government, unification could be maintained between the states. The Articles were weak and promoted disunity which would eventually become prevent the young nation from flourishing.
During this time i would conisder myself a federalist. I can understand some of the anti-federalist reasons for opposing the constitution like fearing it might create an all powerful government that might take over. But the constitution the federalist were proposing was designed to balance the power between the states and federal government which was desperatley needed for the newly emerging framework and foundation for our country. Although the balance between the branches of government were a little shaky in the beginning, it was completley normal and imposing the constitution for America at the time turned out to establish the strongest form of government and country the world knows today.
I disagree with mizchinkyeyez when she says, "The major reasons that would have made me an anti-federalist was their belief that the government should govern less, and the individual states should retain the bulk of the power."
During that time, more government is exactly what the people needed. Riots and violence were poping up all around the country like shays rebellion who had to be put down by the citizens. But, once the constitution was passed it allowed for a military to be formed and then could protect the citizens from the protesters who resulted to violence. Giving the states more power would just have seperated the country even more and led to more distance between them and maybe an even earlier civil war.
I would consider myself as a Federalist because I agree with the Constitution. I believe there should be a strong central government, and there should be a three branch system of government. The Articles of Confederation needed to be revised, and this was the most efficient way to do it. The states had all of the power and a country can not function properly when the central government was as weak as it is. However, at first, Anti-Federalists argued that there needed to be a Bill of Rights, protecting the people.
I agree with "Tinker Bell" because "Demi-gods" is an exaggerated term. The Constitution was created for the people, by the people, and of the people. To use the word "God" in a text like that could violate "Separation of Chuch and State"
If I had lived during the late 1700’s when this was taking place, I would consider myself as a federalist because I believe that the Constitution would help improve America. Anti-federalists favored the Articles of Confederation, but it wasn’t strong enough and it had flaws. Therefore I would have wanted a document that would improve the nation and helped us a whole. The Constitution did just that, it was powerful and helped America because it was basically a revised version of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation helped us see what the flaws were and we were able to better it while writing the Constitution. This document was so strong and well written that it is still in place today. This I why I would mostly consider myself as a federalist rather that and anti-federalist, who opposed the Constitution because they thought it would be too powerful, and since they had recently broken away from Britain they didn’t want another somewhat of a “monarchy.”
I agree with MikeB and obviouslymatt because they are both right about America needing a strong central government. The Constitution did just that and also by having the three branches of government.
I would classify myself as a Federalist. The period of 1787 through 1790 saw a desperate need of order, organization, and a strong government. The Anti-Federalists argued that the constitution gave too much power to the national government rather than the state governments having no bill of rights to protect the rights of the people, and that the Congress wielded too much power. Although it makes sense that the Americans had just fought a war to defend their rights and did not want an intimidating national government taking those rights away, the three branches were established for that purpose. The separation of powers protected the rights of the people in which each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. In other words, the three branches revolve around the American people and their rights in order to have an affective form of government. The Federalists also took into consideration of the consequences of listing specific rights for it would have violated the rights other than the listed ones. So by not listing any specific rights at all, it shows that the Federalists were concerned about the rights of the citizens and not just the government. It is indeed that the Federalists agreed that once Congress had met, it would draft a bill of rights. Even though the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, it has proven to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people in which the Anti-Federalists had wanted.
If I were alive during this period of time, I would consider myself a Federalist. Even though I believe that the people should have the power, a strong central government is needed to support this new country. As stated by schiller_3, the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, which were not perfect and would later on create trouble in this new nation, if kept. The Constitution was much more in-depth and gave the government more power than the Articles of Confederation. For example, the Constitution had the right to tax which meant that the government did not have to request for loans from the states. Points of the Federalists were that they insured the division of powers between all states. This ensured equality and limited power between the people. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists thought that they had just gotten out of a war and didn't want the government taking all the power from the people again. However, what is the point of all this power if there are no laws and rules to manage and control these powers.
tinkerbell09 seems to have mixed Federalism and Anti-Federalism. Federalists supported a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNEMT and the Anti-Federalists supported the POWER OF THE PEOPLE
I agree with wrestler because i think that the articles of confederation was not a perfect document and the Federalists HAD to make the Constitution to fox the A of C
If I was alive between 1787-1790 i would have to agree with most of the others and be a Federalist. Federalists were supporters of the the Constitution and they eventually got there way with things with the Articles being gotten rid of and all. They also had more support by the people because the first 2 presidents were Federalists.
If i were to live in that period of time i would be a federalist because i agree with the constitution. The constitution provides security and makes sures the rights of the people and the states. Its purpose is to keep everything together with a government not as strict as the British. The Anti-federalists feared an strong central government so they wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation which was lenient and had no power. Until the Bill of Rights was proposed msst states were anti federalists.
If I lived during the time that the Constitution was written, I would probably consider myself an Anti-Federalist, otherwise known as a Republican. I believe that it is not the “best people” that should rule the country, but the people themselves, because after all, the people are the one that are being governed. I would have sided with the Republicans for the fact that they called for a weak central government in order to give equal powers to the states. Although a strong central government during this period would have benefited the country the most during this critical time, the states’ rights needed also to be in consideration. Each of the states should have equal power and representation because it would contradict the idea that one state will become too powerful. For instance, most of the delegates during the time that the Constitution was being written would have given more power to one state; the state would then override all the other states, and there would probably be an arousal of rebellions. Likewise, equal representation and power to the states was needed at this time to help keep the states in tranquil. Also, I completely agree with Republican Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Although Hamilton’s idea for a loose government would have provided more flexibility for the regulations made by the Constitution, what the country needed the most at this time was a tight set of rules that the people would follow. Likewise, the following the Constitution would have contributed to the growing of the nation. If the Constitution was followed loosely, then what was the point of having it written?
In response to MizChinkyEyez, I do agree with the fact that a strong central government would have “lead to a dictatorship and America would have become a second Europe.” It would have been ironic if the delegates decided that power should be given to the central government after the country had just won their freedom from monarchy England. As MixChinkyEyez stated, creating a more centralized government would have given more power to the executive branch. I side with the Republicans for creating three equal branches of government; such system would create a balance of power that the every nation needs.
I agree with schiller_3 because i would consider myself a Federalist if were living at that time period. The ratification of the Constitution would grant me many rights, privledges, as well as protection. However, the Anti-Federalists played a crucial role in addressing the Bill of Rights and what is contained within the Bill. But yeah, I think a central government is the way to go rather than having individual powers in states. Powers harnessed within states would invoke civil war(s)... or at least that's what i think.
In response to historykid16, I disagree with the idea that “If each state governs themselves, then eventually they would want to secede or become their own nation.” I have to contradict this statement because I do not think that the states would rise up to create their own nation if each state would be given their rights. Also, each of the states, at this point, depended on one another, whether it be economically or politically. The Constitution provides equal rights for the states, so I see no reason as to why a state would revolutionize themselves.
If I was living during this era, I would be on the Federalists side due to the situation the country was in. I do agree that power should rest in the hands of people, but that power can eventually be abused through corrupted and scandalous people. A compromise between rights and power should be made and that should be between the people and the central government. Furthermore, the newly established United States was still in a state of disunity since every state wanted individual power. More compromise was needed to keep this disunity from progressing and that created the Bill of Rights, which I truly believe is the right path to follow. Finally, the current Articles of Confederation during that time was a whacked document. It made it extremely hard to pass widely needed laws/amendments due to the ratifying process that every state had to go through. Even more so, is that it gave the individual states way too much power to govern itself. An example would be taxing certain foods of one state for another state in the same country to buy. In my opinion, I figured that the Articles of Confederation was a simple stepping stone for the citizens to realize that it is much tougher to run a country based on freedom alone. I agree with "Let Freedom Reign" but that should be checked by higher powers controlled by the Constitution.
I think that i am a federalist, just because i think that the nation should be united into a single strong nation instead of a divided one. I also agree with most of the ideas of the Federalists. I disagree with the antifederalists idea that the Constitution is something that would rob the states and citizens of their individual powers. Oh and werent most of the antifederalists really wealthy? However felicituous my life is, I don't consider my family that kind of wealthy. You know, like Ueber rich or something.
I agree with viaeenie because of her viewpoint of the three branches of government that I forgot to mention in mine. These separation of power among the government is a fabulous way to prevent corruption as well as insure a fair method of governing.
I concur with kobe17. His perspective on people having power but being checked by government is pinpoint in my book. I believe that people eventually become greedy and selfish through capital and needs government as well as a guidelines of rules to prevent such nuisances from taking over the world.
If I were living during 1787 - 1790, i would see myself as a Federalist, other than an Anti-Federalist. My reasons for this is because the Federalist supported a strong central government with three branches and the ratification of the Constitution, and it is evident today that the incorporation of the Constitution helped unify the U.S. into one country. However, Anti-Federalist believed in sovereignty within the states and opposed a strong central government because they thought it would steal power from the middle and poor class. But, the three branch system of the Judicial, Legislative, and the Executive branches, that was supported by the Federalist, was a source of checks and balances when passing laws, to protect a branch from overpowering the central government and abusing its powers. Lastly, Anti-Federalist disagreed with the incorporation the Constitution because it did not have a Bill of Rights and thought that the freedoms of the citizen would be taken away or jeopardized. Then again, the Federalist and the states that supported the Constitution already knew that a Bill of Rights would be added.
I agree with hend in which I too would be a Federalist and believe in Federalism because they believed in the system of checks and balances and they were based on securing democracy and human rights.
I also agree with Frank Kurera in which i also agree that the Articles of Confederation were a weak set of rule and thus the Constitution was created to create stronger ones.
If i had to choose to be a federalist or an anti-federalist i think that i would be a FEDERALIST. I would rather be a federalist because they agreed with the constitution. This shows that they wanted change and a better government. They helped set up the three branches of government,legislative,judicial, and executive. Also they gave america its first president. They were trying to sent up a govenment where the gov't could not take advantage of its people. A gov't where there was fairness and all that people had a right to say what they wanted. Inlike the Federalist the anti-federalist just wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation,which would have been a bad idea. If we were to have kept the Articles then our gov't would have never grown into something better.
I disagree with "fishbowlsurfer" because the Federalist only wanted to improve the gov't not make it exactly like the gov't in britain. if we would have kept the Articles then our government would have been a complete disaster.
I would probably consider myself a Federalist. I would see the anarchy beginning to emerge due to lack of national unity and organization. Thus, I would be frightened, lest our frail union be torn apart. I would also agree that the weak Articles of Confederation should be replaced with a stronger form of central government, such as the one proposed in the Constitution. I would definitely be too conservative to agree with Anti-federalists on their ideas of liberty and the concept of handing all of the power directly over to the citizens of a country. However, the views of the Anti-federalists in adding a Bill of Rights for the people would suit my perspectives, as I believe in a semi-strong central government that also gives power to the people (just not completely).
I would disagree with tinkerbell09 on her statement that Anti-federalists wanted nothing more but to control the people and "take over," since this statement alludes more to the views of the Federalists. Even if the statement had been intended to describe the Federalist perspective, I believe it to be too one sided and general in describing their views.
If I were alive during the period of 1787-1790, I would consider myself an Anti-Federalist. Anti-federalists wanted the power to rest in the people. The strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of the individuals and was undemocratic. Individualism is a strong element I’d advocate for. Without it, where is your input in the laws that rule the country? Though the Federalists called for a stronger central government and a more powerful executive with the intention of creating a more organized and balanced government ruled society, it swallowed up state sovereignty. Where do the common people get the political power to have a say in matters? As stated by Richard Henry Lee, it is hard to believe that the same people, “who have just emerged from a long and cruel war in defense of liberty, should now agree to fix an elective despotism upon themselves and their posterity.” To anti-federalists, the constitution was leaning towards monarchy. The president may easily become king. What happened to what we had fought for in the revolution? While the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. However, eventually after the debate, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights, which gave rights to the people and that, is a federalist idea I would agree to.
If i were alive during the period of 1787-1790, i would probably consider myself as a Federalist for these brief reasons. I believe that the principles federalists stood for were much more stable and thought over as to opposed to the principles that the anti-federalists had. While the federalists stood behind the Constituion, which was created primarily to fix the loopholes and problems the Articles of Confederation had, the anti-federalist stood behind the latter, not wanting a change in fear of monarchy resembling that of their former leader, Britain. I would follow in the footsteps of those [Federalists] who were looking towards a change for the better of the people and towards a greater expansion of the nation, instead of holding back and staying in place because of fear. I mean, look, the constitution has stayed in place since then and even up until now, with the Articles of Confederation, who knows how long our fragile nation would have lasted?
i would have to be a anti-federalist because i agree with the states taking responsiblity for themselfs. if we were all under control of the same government it would be hard to change laws or add them, cause if one state wanted something different then another state, than how would one government take care of the problem. but if they were self govern than one state could change its laws without harming the other state. however the federalist had a good idea when they wanted the states to be under the controll of one government because it would keep america closer together.
lil chris: i agree with their statement about how the Constitution has helped to unify the U.S. into one country. Without this document, the states probably wouldn't have unified until much later and with more evident problems, especially if they stuck to the Articles of Confederation. The creation of the three branches with the central government has proved to be a stable structure for our nation's government.
obviouslymatt: i also agree with this person because of the fact that although the anti-federalists did fear the power that the Constitution had, it was towards the fact that the nation needed a stronger structure in order to survive, specifically because it was fragile and being tested by the other much stronger nations. The federalists saw what the nation needed and handled it, taking matters into their own hands before everything got out of control and destroyed the nation, rather than fixing it.
I would probably agree with the federalists in that the states need a strong central government.
I agree with mashugna's idea that federalists were trying to use their idea to help unify the seperate states.
Although i disagree with mashugna's idea that it would be hard to change/add laws with a strong central government because it wouldn't actually be harder, it would just take more time because of communication problems; although the laws made by the central goverment would be fairer because it would be taking input from different parts of the country.
/)_/) (='.'=) Copy THE Bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
I disagree with mar in which it was stated that a “tight set of rules that the people would follow” was necessary for the country. If being an Anti-Federalist is about preserving the rights of the people and allowing the people to govern, how would a set of rules be affective? Clearly, some would have followed the rules while others would have disagreed because somewhere in the list of rules would have been thought to have violated the rights of the people. However, if the rules were optional and voluntary, then some would have taken advantage of that right and avoid it as much as possible, which would have disrupted the flow of the government. For example, the flaw of the Articles of Confederation is what caused it to be so unsuccessful and a failure to an affective form of government. By avoiding another monarchy and providing more opportunities and choices for the people, the establishment of having taxes for each state as only voluntarily created debt. Therefore, the ideas of giving more rights to the people and letting themselves govern was attempted through the Articles of Confederation, however, its failures brought big measures to the nation in which creating the Constitution was necessary.
During this time I believe I would be a Federalist because I support the purpose of the Constitution and how it gives us our natural rights and how the government is helpful in governing us. Although I would not be an Anti-federalists, I do support the idea of having states govern themselves because this would prevent the central government from being corrupt.
I agree with mizchinkyeyez saying that a strong central government could crush democratic excesses like Shays Rebellion.
I disagree with tinkerbell09's statement about Anti-federalists wanting to take over their people because they were really just afraid that the gov't have to much power.
I would classify myself as a Federalist because I agree with the ideals of the constitution, along with accepting the loose interpretation of the constitution. I would want the separation of powers amongst states so that the central state would be equal. I strongly believe in the rights dictated in the Articles of Confederation, which was the initial document that the Federalists sovereignly believed in.
Yet, in an anti-federalist perspective, the government would act as a sovereign power, which would initiate complete organization, yet little power remaing for the states. The constriction could result in a negative and positive effect, depending on the individual's extent of their First Amendment right.
In response to tinkerbell09, I believe it was the anti-federalists who believed in the rights granted from the articles of confederation. The anti-federalists were the ones who wanted to keep the articles. The reasons you stated seem to fit the beliefs of an anti-federalist more than a federalist. Anti-feds were for individualism and “[standing] up for [themselves]” Federalists generally advocated society laws and guildlines as well as the daily regulations u would protest. Also, it was the federalists who believed in a government powering over everyone. They were the more “dictorial” party whereas the anti-feds were the more democratic party.
In response to brownie-pants, I agree that it is possible to have a strong and organized central government while protecting the rights of the people and the states. Like stated before, the Bill of Rights was still proposed in the end which was what the Anti-Federalists had wanted in the first place.
In response to 1iszt1eistdie1iste, most of the anti-federalists were not wealthy. They were primarily the poorer classes, including backcountry dwellers and one-horse farmers. It was the federalists that were wealthy. Most of them lived in the settled areas along the seaboard instead of the raw backcountry. And how does that follow up on your disagreement of the anti-feds’ idea that the constitution would rob the citizens of their individual powers?
I think that if i were living in the 1787-1790 period i would classify myself as an Anti-Federalist. First of all the Federalist party usually looked out for the wealthy where in that age period I think I would be poor. Anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights in order to insure the individual rights of the people. They did not want to the government to have so much power. Although I agree with the Federalist when they set up the divisions among the three branches. This would help the government not to have so much power. I think that if the entral government got to much power than it may have become like the monarchy in Europe.
i agree with Schiller_3 and TinkerBell09 America at the time was just removed from a gov't that was controling. They did not need another strong gov't.
If I was alive back then I would have been a Federalist for several reasons. One reason would have been that they supported the Constitution. The constitution is what kept our country from separating into its own little countries. Another reason would be that they realized the the Articles of confederation was a failure and the anti-federalists wouldn't accept that. One last reason would be that they wanted a system of checks and balances so that no one person gained absolute power like a monarch.
Although I would have been a federalist I still agree with a few of the anti-federalist ideas. I believe that the anti-feds had a right to be scared of the constitution because there was nothing to protect the peoples' individual rights. When you look at today it is a good thing the anti-feds fought for our freedoms.
I agree with fish bowler and hend.....Federalist ideas were very good and favored equality...Federalist also directed away from a strong central government, they did not want to re live they bad effects of British Rule.
Although i stated before that I would be an Anti-Federalist, i agree with Hend when he says that the system of checks and balances was set up to protect the rights of the people.
If I was alive during the period of 1787-1790, I would have considered myself as a Federalist. As a federalist, I would have encouraged the Constitution because I would have saw as an outlet that would have not only uplifted and improved the well-being of the people but also would have unified the states with the ideas of equality and justice. Anti-federalists were againist the ratification of the Constitution because they believed that it gave the national government too much power over the states, but I believe that without the Constitution the states would have been of an uncivilized nature where many people would have lived there lives with less morals and standards according to society.
I agree with weeshabangxd when this person comments on how long America would have stayed together if the Articles of Confederation had been kept. Other countries like Britian and France already started getting fed up with having to deal with each individual state and not just one government. After a while they would have stopped trading with us which would have made the states leave the Union to save their economies.
I would identify myself as a federalist because i believe that this nation should be controlled by one central government instead of divided sovereign states. If the states were to have its own government and laws, then our nation today would not be united. The constitution is a major role in balancing our 3 powers equally, raised tax authority, and gave bigger states more votes.
The articles of confederation however was the start of governing the new nation, but howevered flawed by its lack of power it gave the government, giving too much power for the people, states would voluntarily pay taxes for national debt, and unbalanced power from the three branches
I agree with mikeb when he says that there needed to be a Bill of Rights to protect the peoples' rights. Without them people would have been forced to do whatever the government wanted them to do. A hypothetical example of this could be that someone gets elected to be governor. Then this person, with his newfound power, has someone arrested because he had a feud going on with him in the past. Without the 5th amendment this person could have sat in prison for the rest of his life.
During this time period, I would hold my position in support of the Federalists. Because Federalists believed in granting people their rights and privileges, I stand behind their approach of government. I strongly believe in empowering the people and giving them governmental strength and a voice to be able to became a part of a national. I believe in the moral standings of allowing the people govern themselves and that of the constitution. With this, a more variety of people could unite as one to grow as a superior national. I don't see myself as an Anti-Federalist because I think the Articles of Confederation are not as strong as the Constitution. A government under those conditions wouldn't succeed in reaching the goal of a powerful and united nation.
mondile I agree that it is a benefit to have a loose interpretation of the constitution. It enabled more opportunity for beneficial amends to the government.
midgetsXruleXtheXworld91 I agree when they state that the Articles of Confereration were incomplete. It was not a strong enough document to use as a basis of government.
If I were living during the period of 1787-1790, I would most likely consider myself an Anti-Federalist. During this time, the Americans had just fought off the evil, monarchical British and fainted at the sight of having their natural rights being abused by the government. Being a middle class citizen during the era, I would be a supporter of the Anti-Federalist way. I would be most concerned by the government stripping me from my fundamental rights as Britain had done. The Federalists had guaranteed an adoption of a Bill of Rights once the new Constitution had been passed, however, why as a citizen who had just recently been deceived by his own country be willing to trust the government. In other words, who says the government would ratify the Bill of Rights once their agenda of passing the Constitution had been completed. If I were to know of future knowledge (as I do know), I would have sided with the Federalists. But living during the time and age of this debate, my heart would have been wooed by the Anti-Federalists.
Well if i was alive in the time period of 1787 and 1790.. i would clssify myself as a ferderalist. This is because being a federalist and believing in such things, like the constituion, meant more power and rights to the people..for example... -freedom of religion -freedom of speack -freedom of press -and the right to life,libert,and property rather then just for the government. It also invoved a strong central government which provided the states with equal amounts of power. Being a Federalist also meant the acceptance of foreign trade which opens our horizans as a country to other opportunities and materials...
In response to viaeenie: You make a fantastic point Victoria. The three branches of government would ensure a righteous government.
In response to fishbowlsurfer: I agree with your stance. Most Americans during the period of the ratification of the Constitution would not understand or be aware of the details of the document.
The American Revolution had just (1776) freed the American colonists from the monarchy of Britain. Therefore, the establishment of another central government bestowing power upon a certain group would definately not appeal to me. Therefore, I would definately be an anti-federalist pushing for the passing of a Bill of Rights to ensure the safety of my rights and to make sure that something like that would not happen again. However, despite the fact that a central federal government intimidated most Americans, it did have its advantages including strong leadership, organization and relative equality throughout the country. Therefore, both groups did have their advantages but due to the time period and context, I would have been an anti-federalist.
I agree with patelz2000's stance on independence with Britain. Most people were just recovering from the revolution and would therefore be fearful of trusting another centralized and powerful government for fear of the loss of their rights.
I disagree with tinkerbell09 as the articles of confederation did not give any power to any central government. they were just a loose pact between the states to keep them united till the real constitution came around.
I believe I would consider myself a Federalist during this time period. I can see the antifederalists' concerns of losing individual freedom and staying out from under the power of the wealthier (they had just gotten out of from under the thumb of the British after all), however i am not fully in agreement. At the time, businesses and people were doing bankrupt and into debt. The nation was dying and getting deeper and deeper into debt. Is that seriously how anyone wishes to live? In a nation with a terribly weak government that can barely hold its own? No. It was better to have a stronger government(with certain limitations and reservations of power to the people) rather than watching the nation fall into disarray and disorder resulting in horrifying ordeals such as Shay's Rebellion and even watching your neighbors (even yourself) fall into bankruptcy. Accepting the constitution would be stating that there is a unity among the states that had to be acknowledged and now there would be steps towards fixing the grave debt that the nation was in and with the guidelines and restrictions laid out by the constitution a total takeover by the government was blocked. Also, the nation was being, in blunt terms, bullied and harassed by older and more developed nations so a standing army would be fully supported and thought necessary in my mind. For those reasons the federalist side would have my support.
Although i am more supportive of the federalists...
I am willing to concede that MIZCHINKYEYES has a point. The government should be stronger but it should also be more about the people...however, i thought the constitution did watch out more for the people...maybe i misinterpreted the text....
I agree with SCHILLER_3 in pointing out a few of the rights and freedoms that are in the constitution, with the minor reminder that the Constitution wasn't a REVISION of the Articles of Confederation. Although that's what the convention had first been called to do, the convention instead decided to throw the whoel thing away and start from scratch to REPLACE the articles of confederation.
I would consider myself a federalist simply because I agree with the terms of Federalism. In Federalism, Federalists felt the need to ratify the Articles of Confederation and create a new Constitution because the article proved that the central government was too weak to govern its own people after the outbreak of Shay's rebellion. Although the articles did provide the Americans more flexible rights, Federalists felt that too much power was given to the people and no economic or social order can be obtained. So Federalists believed that sovereignity should be divided between the central government and its states. When drafting for the U.S. Constitution, they made sure that power cannot be abused through the checks and balances of the separtion of powers. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, were perfectly content with the Articles of Confederation and felt that a stronger central government threatened the power and prestige of the states. In other words, the Anti-Federalists believed that Federalism was monarchy in disguise and argued that there must be a Bill of Rights inserted into the constitution (although strongly opposed to it) to ensure their rights. It is very reasonable to see why they would oppose of Federalism because the Americans had just escaped British rule.
I would classify myself as a federalist because I don not believe that the goverment should be in complete control, i believe the people should have the loudest voice in the goverment. Also unlike the anti-federalist, I believe that we needed to get rid of the Constitution because it would have no benefit to us. The constitution is very import and we should be grateful for all the rights it gives to us. I agree with schiller_3 because I also agree with the constitution and its purpose. I also agree with viaeenie because our three branches of goverment is important and it is effective.
to tinkerbell09: everything about your paragraph is mixed up, so let note on you for some things: Federalists wanted a stronger central government because they felt that a weak government was, of course, inadequate. The Articles of Confederation did not favor a strong government, but rather purposely weaken it so they would not experience another monarchy. Anti-Federalists did not want to "take over and control all matters of the people" as you said. They were the ones that actually feared being taken over. Their rights and freedoms were the things they were most concerned about.
I've been seeing comments that say that the Federalists are the only ones that believed in essential freedoms. Correct me if i'm wrong but freedom of religion and freedom of speech was an amendment to the constitution (which was also part of what was collectivly known as the Bill of Right), something the Anti-Federalists actually proposed of including into the constitution.
if i had to choose, id consider myself a federalist at this period of time. i totally understand why the anti-federalist opposed the constitution, there main reason was that they thought it would create a government that was too powerful. on the other hand, the constitution proposed and supported by the federalists was made to balance the powers of the government and states to create a set of rules for the new emerging nation. the constitution is the oldest form of government that is still in effect as of this day out of the whole world eventhough it was a little unstable at first...
frank kurera: i agree with him on the idea that the articles of confederation were weak because under it no one had to pay taxes, eventhough people hate them, they have to be done in order to keep the nation's economy running.
jenna porretta: i agree with her on her opinion that if the majority back then were anti federalists, our country most likely would have been under a dictatorship. on the other hand, this is not for sure, it could have also been the same but just weaker because the powerful nations at the time such as france, britian, and spain would have overpowered the colonists and still kept the [now U.S.] into their colonies...
Sorry this is late, but my internet was out all yesterday and i havent been home all day today until just now.
I beleive i would be considered a federalist. Mainly because I agree with the constiutions and its purpose. It gave us many rights yet kept society under control without riots all around. The constitution gave us a lot of rights which still exist today.
if i was alive during this time.. i would consider myself a federalist because i am very religious and i go to church. so i need the freedoms. i think it would be better to live with the constitution because it had the essential rules or the rules u would have to live up to. life would be easier to know what u can do and what you cannot do. and the constitution stated that.
I would classify myself as a federalist. I would be totally for the constitution and eveything it has to offer. I believe that our coutry should be conrolled as a whole.
i think i strongly dissagree with lakers 117. We fough for our freedom against a monarchy...not to run wild on new free land. We need some stablity and some form of governement.
in this time period i would consider my self a federalist because they believed in the constitution. its was formed to protect all of the people and the government. it gave freedoms to the people.
i would not consider my self an anti-federalist cause they believed strongly on the articles of confederation which was instead of giving power to the people it gave more power to the government and that the government ruled over the people.
what makes the government stronger are the people and how they all work together!!
103 comments:
I would classify myself as a Federalist because I agree with the constitution and it's purpose. Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation and not adopt a new form of government. However the Articles of Confederation was flawed and the Constitution was just a revised and better thought out version of the Articles of Confederation. Also, the Constitution encompasses some of our most valued rights as "We the People"
For Example -
Equality for every race
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of speech
The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ETC.
Mr Wise.
This Stupid Thing Keeps Making Me Reset My Password, Even Though I Keep Typing In The Right One.
Anti-Federalist.
I probably wouldn't be very rich or educated, so i'd be against those demi-gods.
I'd probably feel like they were screwing me over.
Yup.
I'll write more later.
During this time period, I would consider myself a Ferderalist. Mainly because I support giving the power to the people rather than just an overbearing central government. I support the constitiution and what it stands for. The constitution and government was formed to all in all to protect the people. While Anti- Federalists wanted nothing more than to take over and control all matters of the people. In addition, they supported the Articles of Confederation because it gave more power to the central government rather than the people. The Anit-Federalists were also against the adoption of the constitution, they believed it would take away their power to control the states.
I agree with schiller_3. I agree because the Articles of Confederation were basic giudelines and the Constitution took those guide lines and elaborated to give all states more specific rules to govern themselves.
I disagree with fishbowlsurfer. I don't agree how they said they would be against those "demi-gods." I don't think that was the right choice of words and it can confuse people easily.
I would definently be a Federalist I would want a divison in power amoung all of the states so that we would all be equal. This would allow the power of the government to be limited, so they could not overpower the citizens. Anti-Federalist did not want a Federation they thought that the Articles were ok by themselves. They also had a good point the Articles of Confederation were going to be ammended anyways so why not keept them. Even though the Articles were going to be renewed or fixed, Federalist still thought that they would be to weak.
In 1787 the federalists were initially supporters of the Constitution. They favored federalism, which describes a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between Nation and state. In general , the anti-federalists opposed the constitution. They feared the growing power of the central government and promoted the addition of a Bill of Rights. Since Federalism is based on securing democracy and human rights, I classify myself as a Federalist. Through the system of checks and balances in governmental power,there is a maintenance of a limited national government. The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Yet I also agree with the Anti-Federalist in the idea that the Bill of Rights proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people.
I agree with most of all the blogs. I think that Federalists are essential in the idea of equality and a limited government, however I'd also like to point out the significance of the Bill of Rights. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification. Therefore, Anti-federalism was no completely wrong. It was right in the sense that the American people had just fought a war to defend their rights, and they did not want a intimidating national government taking those rights away again. The 1780s proved to be a time where people were more concerned with securing their own right rather than giving the government power.
hey mr. Wise this is Frank Kurera
this is my user name
i would be a federalist because i would agree on the constitution because during that time America did not have a correct set of rules. the articles of confederation was made weak and we needed a strong set of rules
If I was alive during the period of 1787-1790, I believe that I would have been an anti-federalist, or otherwise known as a Republican.
The Federalists had many good points such as advocating a strong central government, which in some cases can be good because then it would have the power to crush democratic excesses such as Shay's Rebellion. In addition, a strong central government promoted foreign trade which would provide many foreign products to the people of the country.
However, I don't like the idea that the government protects only the lives and estates of the wealthy. The wealthy, no matter what time period, are only a minority of the population. The majority of the population usually mostly consists of the middle class and the poor. I believe that people of the country should be protected, not just the wealthy.
The major reasons that would have made me an anti-federalist was their belief that the government should govern less, and the individual states should retain the bulk of the power. There the people, in intimate contact with local affairs, could keep a more vigilant eye on their public servants. If individual states manage their own people, they would better be able to tend to their needs than the central government who has to manage the whole country.
Basically, I believe that it is better to have one big government, and smaller subdivisions within it. That, I believe, is the best way to run a country smoothly and peacefully. After all, a central government might lead to a dictatorship and America would have become a second Europe.
tinkerbell09
Maybe I misread the text, but weren't the federalists for a central government and the anti-federalists for the "power to the people?"
frank kurera
I agree (even though I'm for anti-federalists) that the Articles of Confederation were weak because then the government didn't have the power to tax people, and even though everybody hates taxes, they still need to be paid in order to keep the country moving.
During this time period,i would classify myself as a federalist,because i strongly believe in the rights granted from the articles of confederation.without the articles,our "pursuit of happiness," would end up being a pursuit to fit societys laws and guidlines.Im independent,and having to follow daily regulations and not being able to make a difference and stand up for myself would create protest.
yet,anti federalists believed in the government powering over everyong instead of soverign states,which at times could control life with better organization.
i believe that with an anti federalist upbringing,power would become over confidence,resulting in a dictorial nation.
"However, I don't like the idea that the government protects only the lives and estates of the wealthy. The wealthy, no matter what time period, are only a minority of the population. The majority of the population usually mostly consists of the middle class and the poor. I believe that people of the country should be protected, not just the wealthy,"states Mizchinkyeyez.
after reading this extract from her comment,i debate federalist outlooks.the population is/has been a middle class,and fitting needs of only upper class wouldnt be fair.
righteousprofit stated "I would definently be a Federalist I would want a divison in power amoung all of the states so that we would all be equal," i completly agree with that statement,it basically sums up my opinion.
During this timr period I would consider myself as a Federalist mainly because I respect and support what the founding fathers were trying to do with the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were almost like an outline for the Constitution but they were very weak and not many people followed it. The Constitution preserves the natural rights of the people, states that the people give the government the power to govern them, limits federal powers and states powers, and includes the Bill of Rights which upholds our most valued rights. It also endures that the government cannot take these away. Perhaps ratify them but they cannot be taken away. Federalists supported the Consitiution because it outlined such powers and supported equality. Anti-Federalists did not like the idea of the Constitution mainly because of their belief that the government should govern less and the states should be able to govern over the people. They believed that the people would have more representation and that the states would be able to keep a better eye on the people as well as tend to a smaller group of people's needs at a time rather than a country as a whole. Although Anti-Federalists bashed the formation of the Constitution and supported the Articles of Confederation they did propose the addition of the Bill of Rights in to the Constitution ensuring that the government was aware of peoples rights. Anti-federalists believed in a some what loose government, almost like they liked the idea of a government but the power belongs to the people. Where as Federalists believed that the government should govern them but their voices must still be heard through representation.
Jenna Porretta- I don't believe that if the majority of the people had been anti-federalists and had achieved what they believed was right, that the nation would come under dictorial rule. I believe that our government would have been entirely way to weak to govern it's people and the pressure from France, Britain, and Spain would have resulted in another war over the weaker United States. We then would have been made back into colonies and put under a harsh rule by another country.
Mizchinkyeyez I somewhat agree with the idea that the governemtn rules as a whole but there are smaller subdivisions within. I also believe that this would result in a mere corruption of power, because when you have many subdivisions of the government governing mass amounts of people you may find that arguements will arise and the government having little knowledge what is happening in these subdivisions will not be able to come in a solve the problems. This could possibly lead to a mass revolt against this form of government and we'd be back at square one.
I would consider myself a Federalist because they were supporters of the Constitution and I think that I would have supported it. The Anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation, but there were many negative effects that came out of them. Therefore I would want to change them just as the federalists, that were for more central government powers, did.
If I was in that time period i would be a federalist because they supported the adoption of the constituion they believed in a strong federal govt. The constution is a very important document that gives rights to the people. In a way the anti federalist had a a point because they were in favor of the bill rights which is a very free document that gives freedom of speech and others. They both had strong ideas it would of being better if they would of put the ideas together and they would had made a constituion and bill of rights.
I agree with tinkerbell09 the ferealist supported giving power to the people inested of a govt. Which is what we have now people have the right to vote and elect who they want. I also agree with frank kurera because the articles of confederation was weak. Well atleast it was a start for something that led to the start of the constitution
I would probably be a anti-federalist because I want my rights to be asured. Federalists had a good point with accepting what all the states finally agreed on, but Anti-federalists also did not want all the power going to the government without limitations.
I agree with MizChinkyEyez because mostly the wealthy were favored with the constitution. The wealthy had power with the constitution because they had more rights and abilities than the lower classes.
I also agree with schiller_3, even though they're a Federalist. The constitution was a better version and many people were happy with that.
If I was living in the United States during the period of 1787-1790, I would consider myself a federalist. The reason is because I agree with constitution and all the freedoms that it offers. For example some of the freedoms are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. I also like how the constitution set up a strong central government and how the people also have a say in the government. Another great thing about the constitution is the fact that it is the oldest form of government in the entire world and it is still used till this day. The anti-federalists were the people who did not agree with the constitution and wanted to keep the Article of Confederation. The Article of Confederation was loosely made and did not give as many freedoms as the constitution. This is why I would consider myself a federalist.
I agree with schiller_3 because we both agree that the constitution is better because it gives us, the people, more freedom.
Oh yeah I forgot one more, I also have to disagree with fish bowl surfer because he states, “I probably wouldn't be very rich or educated, so I’d be against those demi-gods.
I'd probably feel like they were screwing me over.” In reality the federalist favored the constitution which gives us more freedoms so; they were not trying to “screwing you over”, they were actually trying to help.
I would put myself as a federalist during those years because I believe that although states should have power, they should have a government which will keep things intact and make sure states do not go out of control. The one thing that sums up much of that is the Consitution. It controls the power and makes sure it is evenly distributed and also makes sure that we have the amendments and rights in order to create a free country.
In response to schiller_3, I agree that the Constitution does replace the Articles of Confederation by being a more revised version that is definitely much better.
In response to hend, I also agree that the Bill of Rights was necessary in both the Federalist and Anti-fed point of view simply because it protected the rights of citizens.
I would be a federalist. I think the articles of confederation were incomplete.They didnt have everything needed to keep a country alive. The constitution does though. It gives power to both state and government. That way we wouldnt end up with a monarch and we had a central government to keep the US together.
mizchinkyeyez does have a good point though about the government protecting the lives and estates of the wealthy. That would be a turn off of the federalist idea as well.
But I still would have to agree with princess**** with being a federalist. She says that she would be one because they agreed with constitution and I do to.
I would be a Federalist because I agree with the idea of a Constitution because it is necessary to unite the country. A central government needs to govern the United States because it was such a young nation. If each state governs themselves, then eventually they would want to secede or become their own nation.
I think that "midgetsXruleXtheXworld91" has a good point when she/he/they/him/her/I dunno states that with a constitution, "we wouldn't end up with a monarch and we had a central government to keep the US together". A main concern in this time period was unification. Federalist believed that with a balanced government, unification could be maintained between the states. The Articles were weak and promoted disunity which would eventually become prevent the young nation from flourishing.
During this time i would conisder myself a federalist. I can understand some of the anti-federalist reasons for opposing the constitution like fearing it might create an all powerful government that might take over. But the constitution the federalist were proposing was designed to balance the power between the states and federal government which was desperatley needed for the newly emerging framework and foundation for our country. Although the balance between the branches of government were a little shaky in the beginning, it was completley normal and imposing the constitution for America at the time turned out to establish the strongest form of government and country the world knows today.
I disagree with mizchinkyeyez when she says, "The major reasons that would have made me an anti-federalist was their belief that the government should govern less, and the individual states should retain the bulk of the power."
During that time, more government is exactly what the people needed. Riots and violence were poping up all around the country like shays rebellion who had to be put down by the citizens. But, once the constitution was passed it allowed for a military to be formed and then could protect the citizens from the protesters who resulted to violence. Giving the states more power would just have seperated the country even more and led to more distance between them and maybe an even earlier civil war.
I would consider myself as a Federalist because I agree with the Constitution. I believe there should be a strong central government, and there should be a three branch system of government. The Articles of Confederation needed to be revised, and this was the most efficient way to do it. The states had all of the power and a country can not function properly when the central government was as weak as it is. However, at first, Anti-Federalists argued that there needed to be a Bill of Rights, protecting the people.
I agree with "Tinker Bell" because "Demi-gods" is an exaggerated term. The Constitution was created for the people, by the people, and of the people. To use the word "God" in a text like that could violate "Separation of Chuch and State"
If I had lived during the late 1700’s when this was taking place, I would consider myself as a federalist because I believe that the Constitution would help improve America. Anti-federalists favored the Articles of Confederation, but it wasn’t strong enough and it had flaws. Therefore I would have wanted a document that would improve the nation and helped us a whole. The Constitution did just that, it was powerful and helped America because it was basically a revised version of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation helped us see what the flaws were and we were able to better it while writing the Constitution. This document was so strong and well written that it is still in place today. This I why I would mostly consider myself as a federalist rather that and anti-federalist, who opposed the Constitution because they thought it would be too powerful, and since they had recently broken away from Britain they didn’t want another somewhat of a “monarchy.”
I agree with MikeB and obviouslymatt because they are both right about America needing a strong central government. The Constitution did just that and also by having the three branches of government.
I would classify myself as a Federalist. The period of 1787 through 1790 saw a desperate need of order, organization, and a strong government. The Anti-Federalists argued that the constitution gave too much power to the national government rather than the state governments having no bill of rights to protect the rights of the people, and that the Congress wielded too much power. Although it makes sense that the Americans had just fought a war to defend their rights and did not want an intimidating national government taking those rights away, the three branches were established for that purpose. The separation of powers protected the rights of the people in which each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. In other words, the three branches revolve around the American people and their rights in order to have an affective form of government. The Federalists also took into consideration of the consequences of listing specific rights for it would have violated the rights other than the listed ones. So by not listing any specific rights at all, it shows that the Federalists were concerned about the rights of the citizens and not just the government. It is indeed that the Federalists agreed that once Congress had met, it would draft a bill of rights. Even though the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, it has proven to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people in which the Anti-Federalists had wanted.
If I were alive during this period of time, I would consider myself a Federalist. Even though I believe that the people should have the power, a strong central government is needed to support this new country. As stated by schiller_3, the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, which were not perfect and would later on create trouble in this new nation, if kept. The Constitution was much more in-depth and gave the government more power than the Articles of Confederation. For example, the Constitution had the right to tax which meant that the government did not have to request for loans from the states. Points of the Federalists were that they insured the division of powers between all states. This ensured equality and limited power between the people. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists thought that they had just gotten out of a war and didn't want the government taking all the power from the people again. However, what is the point of all this power if there are no laws and rules to manage and control these powers.
tinkerbell09 seems to have mixed Federalism and Anti-Federalism. Federalists supported a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNEMT and the Anti-Federalists supported the POWER OF THE PEOPLE
I agree with wrestler because i think that the articles of confederation was not a perfect document and the Federalists HAD to make the Constitution to fox the A of C
If I was alive between 1787-1790 i would have to agree with most of the others and be a Federalist. Federalists were supporters of the the Constitution and they eventually got there way with things with the Articles being gotten rid of and all. They also had more support by the people because the first 2 presidents were Federalists.
If i were to live in that period of time i would be a federalist because i agree with the constitution. The constitution provides security and makes sures the rights of the people and the states. Its purpose is to keep everything together with a government not as strict as the British. The Anti-federalists feared an strong central government so they wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation which was lenient and had no power. Until the Bill of Rights was proposed msst states were anti federalists.
If I lived during the time that the Constitution was written, I would probably consider myself an Anti-Federalist, otherwise known as a Republican. I believe that it is not the “best people” that should rule the country, but the people themselves, because after all, the people are the one that are being governed. I would have sided with the Republicans for the fact that they called for a weak central government in order to give equal powers to the states. Although a strong central government during this period would have benefited the country the most during this critical time, the states’ rights needed also to be in consideration. Each of the states should have equal power and representation because it would contradict the idea that one state will become too powerful. For instance, most of the delegates during the time that the Constitution was being written would have given more power to one state; the state would then override all the other states, and there would probably be an arousal of rebellions. Likewise, equal representation and power to the states was needed at this time to help keep the states in tranquil.
Also, I completely agree with Republican Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Although Hamilton’s idea for a loose government would have provided more flexibility for the regulations made by the Constitution, what the country needed the most at this time was a tight set of rules that the people would follow. Likewise, the following the Constitution would have contributed to the growing of the nation. If the Constitution was followed loosely, then what was the point of having it written?
In response to MizChinkyEyez, I do agree with the fact that a strong central government would have “lead to a dictatorship and America would have become a second Europe.” It would have been ironic if the delegates decided that power should be given to the central government after the country had just won their freedom from monarchy England. As MixChinkyEyez stated, creating a more centralized government would have given more power to the executive branch. I side with the Republicans for creating three equal branches of government; such system would create a balance of power that the every nation needs.
I agree with schiller_3 because i would consider myself a Federalist if were living at that time period. The ratification of the Constitution would grant me many rights, privledges, as well as protection. However, the Anti-Federalists played a crucial role in addressing the Bill of Rights and what is contained within the Bill. But yeah, I think a central government is the way to go rather than having individual powers in states. Powers harnessed within states would invoke civil war(s)... or at least that's what i think.
In response to historykid16, I disagree with the idea that “If each state governs themselves, then eventually they would want to secede or become their own nation.” I have to contradict this statement because I do not think that the states would rise up to create their own nation if each state would be given their rights. Also, each of the states, at this point, depended on one another, whether it be economically or politically. The Constitution provides equal rights for the states, so I see no reason as to why a state would revolutionize themselves.
If I was living during this era, I would be on the Federalists side due to the situation the country was in. I do agree that power should rest in the hands of people, but that power can eventually be abused through corrupted and scandalous people. A compromise between rights and power should be made and that should be between the people and the central government. Furthermore, the newly established United States was still in a state of disunity since every state wanted individual power. More compromise was needed to keep this disunity from progressing and that created the Bill of Rights, which I truly believe is the right path to follow. Finally, the current Articles of Confederation during that time was a whacked document. It made it extremely hard to pass widely needed laws/amendments due to the ratifying process that every state had to go through. Even more so, is that it gave the individual states way too much power to govern itself. An example would be taxing certain foods of one state for another state in the same country to buy. In my opinion, I figured that the Articles of Confederation was a simple stepping stone for the citizens to realize that it is much tougher to run a country based on freedom alone. I agree with "Let Freedom Reign" but that should be checked by higher powers controlled by the Constitution.
I think that i am a federalist, just because i think that the nation should be united into a single strong nation instead of a divided one. I also agree with most of the ideas of the Federalists. I disagree with the antifederalists idea that the Constitution is something that would rob the states and citizens of their individual powers. Oh and werent most of the antifederalists really wealthy? However felicituous my life is, I don't consider my family that kind of wealthy. You know, like Ueber rich or something.
I agree with viaeenie because of her viewpoint of the three branches of government that I forgot to mention in mine. These separation of power among the government is a fabulous way to prevent corruption as well as insure a fair method of governing.
I concur with kobe17. His perspective on people having power but being checked by government is pinpoint in my book. I believe that people eventually become greedy and selfish through capital and needs government as well as a guidelines of rules to prevent such nuisances from taking over the world.
If I were living during 1787 - 1790, i would see myself as a Federalist, other than an Anti-Federalist. My reasons for this is because the Federalist supported a strong central government with three branches and the ratification of the Constitution, and it is evident today that the incorporation of the Constitution helped unify the U.S. into one country. However, Anti-Federalist believed in sovereignty within the states and opposed a strong central government because they thought it would steal power from the middle and poor class. But, the three branch system of the Judicial, Legislative, and the Executive branches, that was supported by the Federalist, was a source of checks and balances when passing laws, to protect a branch from overpowering the central government and abusing its powers. Lastly, Anti-Federalist disagreed with the incorporation the Constitution because it did not have a Bill of Rights and thought that the freedoms of the citizen would be taken away or jeopardized. Then again, the Federalist and the states that supported the Constitution already knew that a Bill of Rights would be added.
I agree with hend in which I too would be a Federalist and believe in Federalism because they believed in the system of checks and balances and they were based on securing democracy and human rights.
I also agree with Frank Kurera in which i also agree that the Articles of Confederation were a weak set of rule and thus the Constitution was created to create stronger ones.
If i had to choose to be a federalist or an anti-federalist i think that i would be a FEDERALIST. I would rather be a federalist because they agreed with the constitution. This shows that they wanted change and a better government. They helped set up the three branches of government,legislative,judicial, and executive. Also they gave america its first president. They were trying to sent up a govenment where the gov't could not take advantage of its people. A gov't where there was fairness and all that people had a right to say what they wanted. Inlike the Federalist the anti-federalist just wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation,which would have been a bad idea. If we were to have kept the Articles then our gov't would have never grown into something better.
I disagree with "fishbowlsurfer" because the Federalist only wanted to improve the gov't not make it exactly like the gov't in britain. if we would have kept the Articles then our government would have been a complete disaster.
I would probably consider myself a Federalist. I would see the anarchy beginning to emerge due to lack of national unity and organization. Thus, I would be frightened, lest our frail union be torn apart. I would also agree that the weak Articles of Confederation should be replaced with a stronger form of central government, such as the one proposed in the Constitution. I would definitely be too conservative to agree with Anti-federalists on their ideas of liberty and the concept of handing all of the power directly over to the citizens of a country. However, the views of the Anti-federalists in adding a Bill of Rights for the people would suit my perspectives, as I believe in a semi-strong central government that also gives power to the people (just not completely).
I would disagree with tinkerbell09 on her statement that Anti-federalists wanted nothing more but to control the people and "take over," since this statement alludes more to the views of the Federalists. Even if the statement had been intended to describe the Federalist perspective, I believe it to be too one sided and general in describing their views.
If I were alive during the period of 1787-1790, I would consider myself an Anti-Federalist. Anti-federalists wanted the power to rest in the people. The strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of the individuals and was undemocratic. Individualism is a strong element I’d advocate for. Without it, where is your input in the laws that rule the country? Though the Federalists called for a stronger central government and a more powerful executive with the intention of creating a more organized and balanced government ruled society, it swallowed up state sovereignty. Where do the common people get the political power to have a say in matters? As stated by Richard Henry Lee, it is hard to believe that the same people, “who have just emerged from a long and cruel war in defense of liberty, should now agree to fix an elective despotism upon themselves and their posterity.” To anti-federalists, the constitution was leaning towards monarchy. The president may easily become king. What happened to what we had fought for in the revolution? While the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. However, eventually after the debate, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights, which gave rights to the people and that, is a federalist idea I would agree to.
If i were alive during the period of 1787-1790, i would probably consider myself as a Federalist for these brief reasons. I believe that the principles federalists stood for were much more stable and thought over as to opposed to the principles that the anti-federalists had. While the federalists stood behind the Constituion, which was created primarily to fix the loopholes and problems the Articles of Confederation had, the anti-federalist stood behind the latter, not wanting a change in fear of monarchy resembling that of their former leader, Britain. I would follow in the footsteps of those [Federalists] who were looking towards a change for the better of the people and towards a greater expansion of the nation, instead of holding back and staying in place because of fear. I mean, look, the constitution has stayed in place since then and even up until now, with the Articles of Confederation, who knows how long our fragile nation would have lasted?
i would have to be a anti-federalist because i agree with the states taking responsiblity for themselfs. if we were all under control of the same government it would be hard to change laws or add them, cause if one state wanted something different then another state, than how would one government take care of the problem. but if they were self govern than one state could change its laws without harming the other state. however the federalist had a good idea when they wanted the states to be under the controll of one government because it would keep america closer together.
lil chris:
i agree with their statement about how the Constitution has helped to unify the U.S. into one country. Without this document, the states probably wouldn't have unified until much later and with more evident problems, especially if they stuck to the Articles of Confederation. The creation of the three branches with the central government has proved to be a stable structure for our nation's government.
obviouslymatt:
i also agree with this person because of the fact that although the anti-federalists did fear the power that the Constitution had, it was towards the fact that the nation needed a stronger structure in order to survive, specifically because it was fragile and being tested by the other much stronger nations. The federalists saw what the nation needed and handled it, taking matters into their own hands before everything got out of control and destroyed the nation, rather than fixing it.
I would probably agree with the federalists in that the states need a strong central government.
I agree with mashugna's idea that federalists were trying to use their idea to help unify the seperate states.
Although i disagree with mashugna's idea that it would be hard to change/add laws with a strong central government because it wouldn't actually be harder, it would just take more time because of communication problems; although the laws made by the central goverment would be fairer because it would be taking input from different parts of the country.
/)_/)
(='.'=) Copy THE Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
I disagree with mar in which it was stated that a “tight set of rules that the people would follow” was necessary for the country. If being an Anti-Federalist is about preserving the rights of the people and allowing the people to govern, how would a set of rules be affective? Clearly, some would have followed the rules while others would have disagreed because somewhere in the list of rules would have been thought to have violated the rights of the people. However, if the rules were optional and voluntary, then some would have taken advantage of that right and avoid it as much as possible, which would have disrupted the flow of the government. For example, the flaw of the Articles of Confederation is what caused it to be so unsuccessful and a failure to an affective form of government. By avoiding another monarchy and providing more opportunities and choices for the people, the establishment of having taxes for each state as only voluntarily created debt. Therefore, the ideas of giving more rights to the people and letting themselves govern was attempted through the Articles of Confederation, however, its failures brought big measures to the nation in which creating the Constitution was necessary.
During this time I believe I would be a Federalist because I support the purpose of the Constitution and how it gives us our natural rights and how the government is helpful in governing us. Although I would not be an Anti-federalists, I do support the idea of having states govern themselves because this would prevent the central government from being corrupt.
I agree with mizchinkyeyez saying that a strong central government could crush democratic excesses like Shays Rebellion.
I disagree with tinkerbell09's statement about Anti-federalists wanting to take over their people because they were really just afraid that the gov't have to much power.
I would classify myself as a Federalist because I agree with the ideals of the constitution, along with accepting the loose interpretation of the constitution. I would want the separation of powers amongst states so that the central state would be equal. I strongly believe in the rights dictated in the Articles of Confederation, which was the initial document that the Federalists sovereignly believed in.
Yet, in an anti-federalist perspective, the government would act as a sovereign power, which would initiate complete organization, yet little power remaing for the states. The constriction could result in a negative and positive effect, depending on the individual's extent of their First Amendment right.
In response to tinkerbell09, I believe it was the anti-federalists who believed in the rights granted from the articles of confederation. The anti-federalists were the ones who wanted to keep the articles. The reasons you stated seem to fit the beliefs of an anti-federalist more than a federalist. Anti-feds were for individualism and “[standing] up for [themselves]” Federalists generally advocated society laws and guildlines as well as the daily regulations u would protest. Also, it was the federalists who believed in a government powering over everyone. They were the more “dictorial” party whereas the anti-feds were the more democratic party.
In response to brownie-pants, I agree that it is possible to have a strong and organized central government while protecting the rights of the people and the states. Like stated before, the Bill of Rights was still proposed in the end which was what the Anti-Federalists had wanted in the first place.
In response to 1iszt1eistdie1iste, most of the anti-federalists were not wealthy. They were primarily the poorer classes, including backcountry dwellers and one-horse farmers. It was the federalists that were wealthy. Most of them lived in the settled areas along the seaboard instead of the raw backcountry. And how does that follow up on your disagreement of the anti-feds’ idea that the constitution would rob the citizens of their individual powers?
I think that if i were living in the 1787-1790 period i would classify myself as an Anti-Federalist. First of all the Federalist party usually looked out for the wealthy where in that age period I think I would be poor. Anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights in order to insure the individual rights of the people. They did not want to the government to have so much power. Although I agree with the Federalist when they set up the divisions among the three branches. This would help the government not to have so much power. I think that if the entral government got to much power than it may have become like the monarchy in Europe.
i agree with Schiller_3 and TinkerBell09 America at the time was just removed from a gov't that was controling. They did not need another strong gov't.
I agree with mizchinkyeyez when they say that the Federalists had many good points but overall the stats should remain with the bulk of the power.
If I was alive back then I would have been a Federalist for several reasons. One reason would have been that they supported the Constitution. The constitution is what kept our country from separating into its own little countries. Another reason would be that they realized the the Articles of confederation was a failure and the anti-federalists wouldn't accept that. One last reason would be that they wanted a system of checks and balances so that no one person gained absolute power like a monarch.
Although I would have been a federalist I still agree with a few of the anti-federalist ideas. I believe that the anti-feds had a right to be scared of the constitution because there was nothing to protect the peoples' individual rights. When you look at today it is a good thing the anti-feds fought for our freedoms.
I agree with fish bowler and hend.....Federalist ideas were very good and favored equality...Federalist also directed away from a strong central government, they did not want to re live they bad effects of British Rule.
Although i stated before that I would be an Anti-Federalist, i agree with Hend when he says that the system of checks and balances was set up to protect the rights of the people.
If I was alive during the period of 1787-1790, I would have considered myself as a Federalist. As a federalist, I would have encouraged the Constitution because I would have saw as an outlet that would have not only uplifted and improved the well-being of the people but also would have unified the states with the ideas of equality and justice. Anti-federalists were againist the ratification of the Constitution because they believed that it gave the national government too much power over the states, but I believe that without the Constitution the states would have been of an uncivilized nature where many people would have lived there lives with less morals and standards according to society.
I agree with weeshabangxd when this person comments on how long America would have stayed together if the Articles of Confederation had been kept. Other countries like Britian and France already started getting fed up with having to deal with each individual state and not just one government. After a while they would have stopped trading with us which would have made the states leave the Union to save their economies.
I would identify myself as a federalist because i believe that this nation should be controlled by one central government instead of divided sovereign states. If the states were to have its own government and laws, then our nation today would not be united. The constitution is a major role in balancing our 3 powers equally, raised tax authority, and gave bigger states more votes.
The articles of confederation however was the start of governing the new nation, but howevered flawed by its lack of power it gave the government, giving too much power for the people, states would voluntarily pay taxes for national debt, and unbalanced power from the three branches
I agree with mikeb when he says that there needed to be a Bill of Rights to protect the peoples' rights. Without them people would have been forced to do whatever the government wanted them to do. A hypothetical example of this could be that someone gets elected to be governor. Then this person, with his newfound power, has someone arrested because he had a feud going on with him in the past. Without the 5th amendment this person could have sat in prison for the rest of his life.
i agree with caligurl4life310 that without the constitution, people would live in an uncivilized manner and would live with less morals and standards
i would like to correct 1iszt1eistdie1iste that most anti-federalist were poor farmers, lower class and for some part uneducated
During this time period, I would hold my position in support of the Federalists. Because Federalists believed in granting people their rights and privileges, I stand behind their approach of government. I strongly believe in empowering the people and giving them governmental strength and a voice to be able to became a part of a national. I believe in the moral standings of allowing the people govern themselves and that of the constitution. With this, a more variety of people could unite as one to grow as a superior national. I don't see myself as an Anti-Federalist because I think the Articles of Confederation are not as strong as the Constitution. A government under those conditions wouldn't succeed in reaching the goal of a powerful and united nation.
mondile
I agree that it is a benefit to have a loose interpretation of the constitution. It enabled more opportunity for beneficial amends to the government.
midgetsXruleXtheXworld91
I agree when they state that the Articles of Confereration were incomplete. It was not a strong enough document to use as a basis of government.
If I were living during the period of 1787-1790, I would most likely consider myself an Anti-Federalist. During this time, the Americans had just fought off the evil, monarchical British and fainted at the sight of having their natural rights being abused by the government. Being a middle class citizen during the era, I would be a supporter of the Anti-Federalist way. I would be most concerned by the government stripping me from my fundamental rights as Britain had done. The Federalists had guaranteed an adoption of a Bill of Rights once the new Constitution had been passed, however, why as a citizen who had just recently been deceived by his own country be willing to trust the government. In other words, who says the government would ratify the Bill of Rights once their agenda of passing the Constitution had been completed. If I were to know of future knowledge (as I do know), I would have sided with the Federalists. But living during the time and age of this debate, my heart would have been wooed by the Anti-Federalists.
Well if i was alive in the time period of 1787 and 1790..
i would clssify myself as a ferderalist. This is
because being a federalist and believing in such things,
like the
constituion, meant more
power and rights to the people..for example...
-freedom of religion
-freedom of speack
-freedom of press
-and the right to life,libert,and property
rather then just for the government. It also invoved a strong central
government which provided the states with equal amounts of power. Being a Federalist also meant the acceptance
of foreign trade which opens our horizans as a country to other opportunities and materials...
im impressed mizchinkyeyez...jus the amount of information that you were able to find......
fishbowlsufer....i dnt thinkthe level of education was that much of a difference...
In response to viaeenie: You make a fantastic point Victoria. The three branches of government would ensure a righteous government.
In response to fishbowlsurfer: I agree with your stance. Most Americans during the period of the ratification of the Constitution would not understand or be aware of the details of the document.
The American Revolution had just (1776) freed the American colonists from the monarchy of Britain. Therefore, the establishment of another central government bestowing power upon a certain group would definately not appeal to me. Therefore, I would definately be an anti-federalist pushing for the passing of a Bill of Rights to ensure the safety of my rights and to make sure that something like that would not happen again. However, despite the fact that a central federal government intimidated most Americans, it did have its advantages including strong leadership, organization and relative equality throughout the country. Therefore, both groups did have their advantages but due to the time period and context, I would have been an anti-federalist.
I agree with patelz2000's stance on independence with Britain. Most people were just recovering from the revolution and would therefore be fearful of trusting another centralized and powerful government for fear of the loss of their rights.
I disagree with tinkerbell09 as the articles of confederation did not give any power to any central government. they were just a loose pact between the states to keep them united till the real constitution came around.
I believe I would consider myself a Federalist during this time period. I can see the antifederalists' concerns of losing individual freedom and staying out from under the power of the wealthier (they had just gotten out of from under the thumb of the British after all), however i am not fully in agreement. At the time, businesses and people were doing bankrupt and into debt. The nation was dying and getting deeper and deeper into debt. Is that seriously how anyone wishes to live? In a nation with a terribly weak government that can barely hold its own? No. It was better to have a stronger government(with certain limitations and reservations of power to the people) rather than watching the nation fall into disarray and disorder resulting in horrifying ordeals such as Shay's Rebellion and even watching your neighbors (even yourself) fall into bankruptcy. Accepting the constitution would be stating that there is a unity among the states that had to be acknowledged and now there would be steps towards fixing the grave debt that the nation was in and with the guidelines and restrictions laid out by the constitution a total takeover by the government was blocked. Also, the nation was being, in blunt terms, bullied and harassed by older and more developed nations so a standing army would be fully supported and thought necessary in my mind. For those reasons the federalist side would have my support.
Although i am more supportive of the federalists...
I am willing to concede that MIZCHINKYEYES has a point. The government should be stronger but it should also be more about the people...however, i thought the constitution did watch out more for the people...maybe i misinterpreted the text....
I agree with SCHILLER_3 in pointing out a few of the rights and freedoms that are in the constitution, with the minor reminder that the Constitution wasn't a REVISION of the Articles of Confederation. Although that's what the convention had first been called to do, the convention instead decided to throw the whoel thing away and start from scratch to REPLACE the articles of confederation.
I would consider myself a federalist simply because I agree with the terms of Federalism. In Federalism, Federalists felt the need to ratify the Articles of Confederation and create a new Constitution because the article proved that the central government was too weak to govern its own people after the outbreak of Shay's rebellion. Although the articles did provide the Americans more flexible rights, Federalists felt that too much power was given to the people and no economic or social order can be obtained. So Federalists believed that sovereignity should be divided between the central government and its states. When drafting for the U.S. Constitution, they made sure that power cannot be abused through the checks and balances of the separtion of powers. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, were perfectly content with the Articles of Confederation and felt that a stronger central government threatened the power and prestige of the states. In other words, the Anti-Federalists believed that Federalism was monarchy in disguise and argued that there must be a Bill of Rights inserted into the constitution (although strongly opposed to it) to ensure their rights. It is very reasonable to see why they would oppose of Federalism because the Americans had just escaped British rule.
I would classify myself as a federalist because I don not believe that the goverment should be in complete control, i believe the people should have the loudest voice in the goverment. Also unlike the anti-federalist, I believe that we needed to get rid of the Constitution because it would have no benefit to us. The constitution is very import and we should be grateful for all the rights it gives to us.
I agree with schiller_3 because I also agree with the constitution and its purpose.
I also agree with viaeenie because our three branches of goverment is important and it is effective.
to tinkerbell09:
everything about your paragraph is mixed up, so let note on you for some things:
Federalists wanted a stronger central government because they felt that a weak government was, of course, inadequate.
The Articles of Confederation did not favor a strong government, but rather purposely weaken it so they would not experience another monarchy.
Anti-Federalists did not want to "take over and control all matters of the people" as you said. They were the ones that actually feared being taken over. Their rights and freedoms were the things they were most concerned about.
I agree with flo<3
Our economy would practically fall apart if we were goverened by a weak government.
I've been seeing comments that say that the Federalists are the only ones that believed in essential freedoms. Correct me if i'm wrong but freedom of religion and freedom of speech was an amendment to the constitution (which was also part of what was collectivly known as the Bill of Right), something the Anti-Federalists actually proposed of including into the constitution.
if i had to choose, id consider myself a federalist at this period of time. i totally understand why the anti-federalist opposed the constitution, there main reason was that they thought it would create a government that was too powerful. on the other hand, the constitution proposed and supported by the federalists was made to balance the powers of the government and states to create a set of rules for the new emerging nation. the constitution is the oldest form of government that is still in effect as of this day out of the whole world eventhough it was a little unstable at first...
frank kurera: i agree with him on the idea that the articles of confederation were weak because under it no one had to pay taxes, eventhough people hate them, they have to be done in order to keep the nation's economy running.
jenna porretta: i agree with her on her opinion that if the majority back then were anti federalists, our country most likely would have been under a dictatorship. on the other hand, this is not for sure, it could have also been the same but just weaker because the powerful nations at the time such as france, britian, and spain would have overpowered the colonists and still kept the [now U.S.] into their colonies...
Sorry this is late, but my internet was out all yesterday and i havent been home all day today until just now.
I beleive i would be considered a federalist. Mainly because I agree with the constiutions and its purpose. It gave us many rights yet kept society under control without riots all around. The constitution gave us a lot of rights which still exist today.
if i was alive during this time.. i would consider myself a federalist because i am very religious and i go to church. so i need the freedoms. i think it would be better to live with the constitution because it had the essential rules or the rules u would have to live up to. life would be easier to know what u can do and what you cannot do. and the constitution stated that.
good job guys!
I would classify myself as a federalist. I would be totally for the constitution and eveything it has to offer. I believe that our coutry should be conrolled as a whole.
i think i strongly dissagree with lakers 117. We fough for our freedom against a monarchy...not to run wild on new free land. We need some stablity and some form of governement.
in this time period i would consider my self a federalist because they believed in the constitution. its was formed to protect all of the people and the government. it gave freedoms to the people.
i would not consider my self an anti-federalist cause they believed strongly on the articles of confederation which was instead of giving power to the people it gave more power to the government and that the government ruled over the people.
what makes the government stronger are the people and how they all work together!!
Post a Comment