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.
When written, the United States Constitution did not provide for the development of a two-party system. Yet we, as the rebellious Americans that we are, managed to find a way around the Constitution. The two parties that emerged during the 1790s were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, so aptly named, favored a strong centralized government as outlined in the Constitution. The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force.
Without a strong central government, democracy was impossible thus America was propelling towards the gallows of failure. Roche asserts that only a functional governing body could effectively protect the earnestly fought for freedoms of the United States. ”When the Constitutionalists went forth to subvert the Confederation,
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?
John Locke would not agree with the constitutions set up for the executive branch. He would want them to be stronger then the constitution sets them up. Locke believes a weak government will not be able to effectively pass laws. The Influence of Locke…) The judiciary Branch is the only branch not selected by the people and it is a system of courts that
The controversy of the argument was on the basis that, “there was an inherent connection between the states and the preservation of individual liberty, which is the end of any legitimate government.” Their own argument have invariably created a national government instead of a federal government. This is because “the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states, instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the states.” Anti-federalists were against constructing a new constitution and they agreed that without valid amendments the constitution would give the government too much power. This power would then lead to confusion according to the (Centinel 1787) “ The new constitution instead of being panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocated will be found upon examination like Pandora’s box replete with every
First, before it became a sovereign nation, the king of England indirectly and directly governed the US and the colonists grew to reject that as an authority figure. The early Americans and current Egyptians share the same struggle by having their lives controlled by a foreign country. The American Revolution occurred when thirteen colonies decided to come together to break free from the British Empire. They rejected the right of the British Parliament to govern them from across the Atlantic Ocean without representation. Taxation without representation was the main reason for their rebellion.
The previous Constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. The Anti-Federalists worried that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and that there was no Bill of Rights. (16) Patrick Henry argues for a Bill of Rights, “ the necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before… Without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind than ever the world saw a government that was abandoned all its powers the power of taxation, the sword, and the purse.”(17) George Clinton argues that a republican style of government cannot ensure the rights of the people and will in turn; make the country into a monarchy. “ A consolidated republican form of government… divided against
Although America broke free from the British and Americans wanted their government to be nothing like the Britain’s government at all, America went through changes in the government but went back to having a centralized government like what the British had set up. But first, America wanted to change their government into what they thought would make it more of their own unique
They feel that the executive branch holds too much power, and having too much power could in fact be very bad and a threat. Anti-federalist were not as organized as the federalist, and didn’t take into consideration that checks and balances and such stop one branch from becoming too powerful. I learned more about he Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments of the constitution that were made limit the power of the United States Federal Government. This was mainly maid to protect citizens.