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?
The Federalist 51 was an article created in 1788 by, James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, stating that in order to have a more proper government structure the use of checks and balances is much needed. He starts off by saying each branch, legislative, executive, and judicial must be independent but all three should share the equal amount of power. The reason the three branch’s should have equal power is because it will only avoid the possibilities of democracy collapsing. He even states, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” This means that since each government will want to seek more power they will have to compete with each other like tug of war. However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government.
President Woodrow Wilson wrote “the he Constitution of the United States is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” One must keep this fact in mind when comparing the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. There was a vast difference in the “spirit of the age” when these documents were drafted. Coming on the heels of the Declaration of Independence and the war against England, and afraid of a dictatorship or a government that did not listen to its people, the Articles of Confederation (which will be referred to as AoC) were written it a way that gave more power to the states. The problem with this type of government was that it was too difficult to enact or enforce laws and the government could not collect enough taxes to support itself. 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.
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.
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. After the ratification of the Articles of Confederation the states pretty much governed themselves, they regulated their own interstate trade, they raised their own militia, and the Sovereignty resided in the
All of these questions needed to be answered and the only logical way to resolve these issues was through government. The execution of government and such laws was in the best interest of the commonwealth for the public good. This is the main connection between property and the need for public government because without government who would preserve and protect these interest. Locke recognized the danger of leaving absolute power to any one individual, or group of individuals. Locke thought that the government’s power was best limited by dividing it up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function.
Disagreements erupted over how the colonies felt that they should be treated and the way they were actually treated by Britain. The British stance was that the colonies were created for the benefit of Britain and the Colonialists wanted more say in their own existence. One main cause of the revolution was that the Colonists wanted more representation within the British government hence “no taxation without representation”, (Hickman n.d.), Britain was unwilling to do this. Another factor was the geographical distance between Britain and the Colonists, this created a sense of independence with in the colonies. Britain therefore tried to tighten control over the Colonists through a series of acts designed to quell any sense of rebellion.
The general consensus was that smaller states demanded a more active role in the government, despite their smaller populations, but the larger states claimed bias and claimed that, in essence, “majority rules”. Some major delegates also used this opportunity to forever shut the ghosts of Shay, in which the government was granted significant power to suppress like wise rebellions. The government would be in essence based on that of England, but with a conglomeration of majority and state rule. Prominent figures such as James Madison proposed compromises, which led eventually to the decline of states rights and the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation. This, however, was also balanced so to ratify the Constitution.
They stressed that the newly created form of central government did not threaten the states’ rights. The Anti-Federalists touted the “spirit of ‘76” (Schultz, page 15) in favor of a weaker central government, preservation of states’ rights, strong individual liberties and at the very least a robust bill of rights to protect individual liberties. Ratification stalled as Anti-Federalists from larger states such as Massachusetts, New York and Virginia refused to ratify until a bill of rights for citizens was guaranteed, and Federalists, eager to see the Constitution enacted, resisted lengthy amendments to the Constitution for fear of having to begin writing the entire framework over
These arguments, although they do not specifically state to physically riot against authority, become enabling factors by which the population should rebel. To begin with, Paine argues that the population of each individual colony would be subjected to better living should they be responsible for their own governing laws. Rather than follow the set rules of the British monarchy, Paine suggests the citizens should “establish a common interest with every part of the community, [and] they will mutually and naturally support each other.” (Paine, 49) Next, he argues that the British monarchy is very complex, contradictory, and unfair to its citizens. For instance, Paine notes that the monarchy “first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.” (Paine, 50) The contradictory case does not just end here, it is also witnessed in the fact that the monarchy continues through the act of hereditary succession – whereby the King’s descendent automatically becomes heir to the throne. He