Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation. How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out?
Even though the changes proposed in the Constitution were essential to the survival of the nation, the Articles of Confederation also had some positive and effective measures. Some of the strengths of the Articles included the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 while some of the weaknesses of the Articles amended in the Constitution are the power of taxation, and establishment of the executive branch of government. One of the changes in the Constitution that addressed and mended the weakness of the articles was the power of taxation. Originally the Articles of Confederation stated that only states alone could levy taxes (Doc C). This weakness was later addressed and amended in the constitution, when it granted the federal government all powers of taxation (Doc C).
Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation to those of the Constitution. Which document did a better job at protecting liberties? Which document did a better job at running a government? Explain your answer with specific examples The Articles of Confederation was drafted in 1777, but was not ratified by all the states until March 1st, 1781. At the time, the states feared a strong central government, for this reason, the Continental Congress tried to give the states as much independence as possible.
I would say that the relationship between Britain and the American colonies were peaceful and harmonious on the subject of Salutary Neglect. Salutary Neglect was placed on the thirteen American colonies as the British had thought that it was best not to interfere and stir up trouble. The policy meant that the Americans could rule their colonies with no restriction unless the governor disapproves. The prime minister at the time had said that “if no restrictions were placed on the colonies, then they would flourish”. They did however have a Charter written up which had a list of people who had privileges and titles.
But Americans were not backing down; in fact it was the exact opposite. John Jays letter to Parliament and Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” were two amongst many publishing’s strongly stating that ties from Britain would mean the flourishing of free trade for America. America, with the assistance of France, would soon gain this independence politically and would soon look into commercial trade as a crucial issue. Through Benjamin Franklins views, Americans believed that “the War of Independence was as much about guaranteeing commercial freedom as it was about securing natural rights”(Lambert 40). However much they thought Independence politically would translate to the trading world Americans would soon find that “demanding a full measure of independence at home, they would undermine the independence of America in the Atlantic world” (Lambert
Whereas the French wanted a revolution to be freed from the monarchs that were implementing things in France. Due to the common reasons why the French and Americans were persisting into having a revolution made it seem like these revolutions were very similar. Unfortunately, there is some indifference towards both of the revolutions.
This is supported because during this period there were limited reforms which had any dramatic change on the political establishment. The political establishment also included the slightly democratic parliament, which disguised the authoritarian constitution which Germany was ruled by, however the authoritarian power is shown by the ability which the Kaiser had to dissolve the Reichstag. The statement can be supported because during this period there was little movement away from the autocratic regime and towards either a more democratic or socialist political establishment. It could therefore be argued that the authoritarian establishment was maintained and that reforms
The issuing of the Polignac Memorandum in October 1823 by George Canning, stating that Great Britain had no intention of helping Spain in the retention of her colonies is indicative of this interventionist nature, with Britain recognising the independence of Mexico, Columbia and Buenos Aires. Also, British involvement in Greece occurred as a result of concerns over Russian ambitions in the Ottoman Empire: the British were trying to protect Greek independence. This again shows involvement in a war on a major scale in order to support a liberal movement, supporting the aforementioned interpretation. Additionally, Britain also took major steps in this period in creating an amicable relationship with America by solving outstanding border disputes (especially Lord Aberdeen, who had to work with the highly anti-British President Polk), showing that Britain was even aiding the liberal ambitions of a former British colony, meaning that the administrations in the period was highly sympathetic to such movements. Hence, it can be seen that British support for foreign movements for national independence plays quite a substantial role in their foreign policy.
If America were to remain under British rule it would only cause more conflict between the countries in Europe because other countries were trying to get a piece of America for themselves. Paine is saying that if America gains independence the fighting will stop among Europe, and America can benefit all countries with trade. 3.) Why does Chalmers equate independence with slavery? I think Chalmers equates independence with slavery because he already believed he was free under British rule.
Federalists V. the Anti- Federalists After the American Revolution, the United States was free of British control and their first attempt at a formal government was a document titled: The Articles of Confederation. Many believed that under the Articles of Confederation enough power was not given to the central government, while many others believed that too much power was given to the state government. One result of the Articles of Confederation was that the Philadelphia Convention was called in the summer of 1787. The convention was originally called to help strengthen The Articles of Confederation, but it was later decided that a whole new constitution needed to be written. This is where the Constitution of the United States of America was born and with it came the opposing views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.