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.
Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other. King’s own account of his philosophy of nonviolence indicated the extent to which he was influenced by Thoreau’s theoretical framework for thinking about civil disobedience and political obligation. Thoreau has confidence in democracy and the belief of unifying individuals of the society to realize it. However, Nietzsche overtly objected to democratic politics, with thinking that love, freedom and democracy are all the results of recognizing the right. Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement.
This power caused principles in Jacksonian Democracy including Manifest Destiny. The idea of Manifest Destiny basically is the belief that America has the power to expand its borders to the western land and all of America from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. This is destiny that was given to America from God supposedly and Jacksonian Democracy completely defends it. Also, Jackson believed in a limited federal government even though he wasn’t satisfied on the idea of a strong state government. Jacksonian’s agree with a “hands-on” approach to the economy meaning that the government to strong control over the countries economy.
Many would have to consider Thomas Jefferson as a man who was consistently inconsistent. Jefferson has a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Regardless Jefferson did abandon the principles of his party in order to do what was best for the country and it wasn’t necessarily doing what his party members agree on. Thomas Jefferson inconsistencies included international affairs, politics, and economic policies. Thomas Jefferson’s policies to for economic policies and letting the people follow their dreams to provide themselves with a steady income and provide a living.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND A FEDERALIST NATION How an Outsider Shaped America’s Economic and Political Future Jason Carr U.S. Constitutional History, 460 Winter Term, 2013 THE EARLY LIFE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON The basic tenants of federalism advocated by Alexander Hamilton have stood the test of time and contribute greatly to the financial and constitutional system in modern America. Federalism in the United States is the idea that the supreme power of a nation should reside within its central government making it sovereign over the various states. This became an important principle that was debated during the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton was an ardent believer that the states were incapable of uniting the people politically and economically.
The new right was radical departure from traditional conservatism because the policies on society are completely different. Traditional conservatives see society as organic, a natural state of civilisation, whereas the new right sees society, as no more than a collection of individuals. Thatcher famously stated ‘there is no such thing as society’. This enables us to argue the point that Thatcherism was radical departure from traditional conservatism. Furthermore, traditional conservatives support free markets but take a pragmatic view of economic management, believing that there are sometimes where state intervention is need.
The author of the quote, Louis Brandeis, states that by both ideologies cannot coexist in the same society. Classical conservatism believes that only the wealthy and educated, or elite, people should be in power of government. They assume that uneducated are incapable of making sound decision based on what
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.
Thoreau on School Segregation Henry David Thoreau is known as one of history’s greatest critics of American government. Thoreau argues that a government should be run by the group with the most legitimate viewpoint, not the group with the most power. In 1849, he wrote Civil Disobedience in which he urges his readers to use their conscience to determine if a government is acting within its bounds or if it is committing injustice. Thoreau argues that a citizen must do what is right and not simply comply with the law’s demands. He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them.