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?
With respect to the Federal Constitution, the Jeffersonian republicans are usually characterized as strict constructionists who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the federalists. To what extent was this characterization of the two parties’ accurate during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison? The Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists were both thought to be different when abiding by the constitution. The Republicans believed that the authority of the Federal government was based on a strict constitution, characterizing them as strict constructionists (Doc A). Federalists, on the other hand, believed in broadly adhering to constitution, characterizing them as broad constructionists.
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.
The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force. Chiefly, the emergence of the American two-party system arose from strongly opposed political views, but also developed out of experience and a struggle for power. As previously stated, the main reason for the development of the party system in the United States, or any political party for that matter, is a difference in beliefs on how a government should be operated. The Federalists, formed by Alexander Hamilton – Washington’s Treasury Secretary – in 1794, favored federalism with government having the power to control commerce, tax, declare war, and make treaties among other powers.
1. Although Benjamin Franklin’s Plan for the Union was designed for protection and not power, it did have some aspects to it that were more politically and economically motivated. It suggested that a general assembly was to be formed, providing a general and uniform government in the colonies for the first time. This council would not only make military plans and preparations, but also make laws and “levy…general duties, imposts or taxes” on the colonies. This was most likely why the British government did not support the plan, as it would have given the colonists even more power to self govern, and would have allowed the Colonies to have more power of taxation during a time where Britain was beginning to levy more taxes on them.
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 believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
Federalist vs. anti- federalist Federalists liked having a strong central government--the kind with the president and congress and the Supreme Court. Anti-Federalists, however, wanted strong state governments--they wanted more laws to be made by state governors and state senators. 8. A federal system of government Federalists favored a strong central government as opposed to the anti federalists who favored a weaker central government. Federalists wished the US constitution to pass as it was before the amendments and the bill of rights.
Legistlative Branch was to make laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial Brance is to interpret the laws. The Consititution banned states from being completely independent from one another but still be able to have their rights in independence for the people. Though these branches had remanded in the plans, it also followed into the Constitution. This new government would allow for a republic to rule, where the people had the oppurtunity to voice for themselves and to be heard that would respectfully benefit everyone in the country, and not just the majority. Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties.
He stood for a strong federal government because he strongly struggled with giving states too much power, thinking they would start a rebellion in which could not be controlled. However, he knew the people had to given some say in things, and therefore had to consider the role of the government. He wanted the government to have