Analyze the reasons for the Anti-Federalists opposition to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists criticized the Constitution for having been drafted in secrecy. They further argued that the Constitution took important powers from the states, and the fact that they could not print money under the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights.
The Articles of Confederation was a first attempt at a constitution for the United States while it was fighting to gain independence from the British government in the Revolutionary War. First proposed in 1776 by Richard Henry Lee at the Second Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation were able to maintain some stability for the country through the end of the war. However, it proved to be a highly inadequate form of government when it could not provide for the economic and political demands of a developing nation. The Articles of Confederation were not able support a strong centralized government, therefore resulting in a lack of an authoritative presence with regard to domestic and foreign affairs affecting the thirteen states. The national government was weak and disconnected, and the federal powers were greatly lacking.
Prelude to Civil War DBQ By the 1850's the Constitution, originally framed as an instrument of national unity, had become a source of sectional discord and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it has created. It is known that the union did not last that’s why the Civil War happened. If everyone could agree on what the constitution implied, then there probably would not have been a civil war. From many of the documents, there are arguments about what the constitution states. "To the Argument, that the word 'slaves' and 'slavery' are not to be found in The Constitution, and therefore it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply, that no such words are continued in the instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, to meet the necessities of slavery."
Federalist were for a system of strong federal courts while Anti-federalists were for limits on the federal courts. For example, Anti-federalists were opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court having original jurisdiction to hear suits between a state and a citizen of another state. This power and other powers given to the U.S. courts would result in the destruction of both the judicial function and the legislative function of the state governments. Federalists were for this original jurisdiction and for the U.S. courts having the power of review and veto over the enactments of the state legislatures and the decisions of the state courts. The Federalists were for the federal government having the power to raise taxes directly from the people.
Jefferson, however, argued that since the Constitution didn't state that it would allow a National Bank, it shouldn't be created. This is one example of how Hamilton and Jefferson felt that something should be changed, however, show differences in their opinions as to how to fix the problem. Another strong difference Hamilton and Jefferson have is their view on form of government. Alexander Hamilton is a strong Federalist, in which believed in strong government, similar to today's Democrats, while Thomas Jefferson was a strong Anti-Federalist, meaning he was against big government, which is like today's Republicans. This, again, indicates another example of how these two are so similar in views of things to change in government, however, have different visions on how to improve those things.
He believed that his first obligation was not to the government, but to do what he felt was right. To obey a law he was not in agreement with was to go against his conscience. He refused to pay taxes to support the war on
Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not these documents should or should not be passed and what power is justified. It is these different ideas which helped shape the future of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were against ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the closer the government was to the people, the easier it was for the people to keep it in check and making it harder for the government to become tyrannical. Anti-Federalist tried to appeal to western settlers with ideas of voting right to everyone and not just rich land holders.
Also, another issue with the court system was all the power to the King. This was an issue because a large mass of people (The 3rd Estate) had no share in the government, which meant that the likelihood that they were unhappy was high; to make it worse, Louis XVI was not a great ruler. He was famous for the line, “The thing is legal because I wish it,” which basically means, “What I say goes,” which is not a good plan because there is no planning or foresight involved. Also, he used the lettres de cachet, which is like a warrant where any critic of the government would receive a letter that
However, the opposing side was strongly worried that the United States government was going to have a loss of power. The opposing side had a goal to make the debate drug out as long as possible, by having long speeches about how the Bill angered them. Barry Goldwater stated that he believed that the United States government should not get involved in the employment area because there is “no constitutional basis for the exercise of federal regulatory.” Also stated in this selection Senator Sam Ervin says that it would ruin the relationships with the state and the federal government. Last but not least Senator John Stennis pointed out mainly that citizens should be able to their own businesses or property as that wished upon. (Source 6) Filibusters was another main event that took part in of the passing of the bill.