Some political issues that arose from the ratification of the Constitution were that it gave the central government way too much power. It also lacked civil rights for the citizens and it didn’t have enough states behind it to elect the first president, therefore George Washington was appointed as the first President of the United States. When the ratification of the Constitution went through two major political parties were formed, the Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong central government and less power for the states) and the Anti-Federalists (Thomas Jefferson, believers in a weak central government and more individual powers to the states). These two political parties had different interpretations on who would have the final authority within the nation. Federalist were strong supporters of a powerful central government and limiting the powers of states individually, while the Anti-Federalists thought that a weak central government and more power to each state would benefit the nation better.
Jefferson being a strict constructionist approved the purchase, even though it went against his belief of strict construction, because he knew it would increase federal power and be a giant step towards democracy. Borden supports his position by explain how Jefferson kept the National Bank even though it was created by Federalist Alexander Hamilton. Borden believes Jefferson didn’t close the bank because it was successful and Jefferson put the nation success over republican success. However, Forrest McDonald disagrees with Borden and thinks Jefferson was replacing Federalist principles with Republican ideology. Jefferson’s
The founding father’s were able to give the people a democratic way of electing leaders, while still having the a few of the people making important decisions in the peoples best interest. During the time of the revolution people were sick of the British parliament and felt as though the were not getting a fair and equal share in the decisions pertaining to them. Hence the phrase taxation without representation was coined. When America won the revolution many concerns and issues cropped up with the declaration of independence, it held very small amounts of power. Paying off debuts of the revolution became a choice that most states opted out on because their was no force behind the request.
Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies. He says that the writers and supporters of the Constitution were Federalists and they believed that the Constitution was a fulfillment. Which basically means, that those Federalists didn’t see anything wrong with the Constitution. Antifederalists said the Constitution was a denial of the principles of 1776. They were saying that the Constitution was didn’t honor the liberty nor the self-government.
Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led.I am sure these seemed like legitimate claims at the time, however, they are really fears unfounded by any proof. They thought that a government would do all these things but how could they be certain if they didn’t give it a chance? The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them; the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
Supporters believed that under the Articles of Confederation the government did not hold enough power. The leading figure in this party was Alexander Hamilton who had served as Secretary of Treasury for George Washington’s first term as president. Hamilton proposed the state debts that had come from the revolutionary war, which had created a national debt for the U.S. Hamilton answered this with the idea of the first bank of the United States. The main goal of the idea Hamilton had proposed, of state debts was to avoid unnecessary and possible destructive competition between state and federal governments. Which also allowed the federal government the opportunity for revenue.
Hamilton created his Federalist party to help promote his goals for the United States. Jefferson’s opposition party, the Republicans, “opposed Hamilton's urban, financial, industrial goals for the United States, and his promotion of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain.” Their interpretation of the Constitution also was very different. Hamilton interpreted it very loosely and used the elastic clause to get what he wanted out of it, while Jefferson read and followed if very strictly. This is a reason Jefferson was against Hamilton’s plans. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the idea of building a National Bank in the United States.
Pg.389 7. I feel as if Emerson’s state about Thoreau being a true American to be somewhat true. Thoreau was patriotic in a sense because he cared deeply about the well-being and the actions of Americans. He feels as if the government is unnecessary because it only benefits the wealthy and those involved in it. Thoreau believes that the government takes the power out of the people’s hands.
He held a firm stance against treason and sedition. However, as a Federalist he knew the importance of each state having its own sovereignty. During the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia in 1787, Madison urged other delegates to include an equal balance to each state while considering amending the Articles of Confederation. Madison was probably the most influential of the founding fathers without getting much of the credit
If the USA joined the League, it would mean agreeing with the colonies and empires idea and it would also mean that the League would be in control of Britain and France. The Legislative doesn’t want us being under control of France and Britain because we are more powerful than both those countries and we have pride in our country. Being the under the League’s control could cost us anything. The League could force us to give money or soldiers to help sort out other countries’ disputes. USA is powerful because of our isolationism from other foreign countries and if we joined the League, it would mean that we would be under control of Britain and France and we would be like dummies; doing whatever the puppet master told us to do.