1. If you are going to post anonymously, I HAVE TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE. E-mail me your handle (a person's alias, nickname, or code name.) to fitzgeraldt@lisd.net
How to sign in without a Google account:
1. Type in your comment.
2. On the drop down menu click "Name/URL"
3. Type in your name or your "handle"
4. Don't post anything in the URL field.
5. Click submit. The post will then come to me for approval.
Good? E-mail me with any questions. fitzgeraldt@lisd.net
Happy blogging.
-Fitz
--
Today's post:
Imagine you are citizen of these United States while the country is debating ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Knowing what you know now in 2010, would you consider yourself more aligned with the Federalist point of view led by Madison and Hamilton or the Anti-Federalists led by Patrick Henry? Why?
If I was a U.S. citizen during the time that the Constitution was proposed and being ratified I would have to agree mostly with the views of the Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry. The Anti-Federalist views showed the want to avoid a strong centralized government; however they were willing to ratify a Constitution as long as there was some "extras" added to it. One addition they required was something that protected the rights that they had JUST fought for from Great Britain because they doubted that a document that was "to protect the people's rights" in fact would without anything of the sort in the actual document. Therefore the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, and ironically enough plays one of the most important roles of the Constitution to this day(i.e. "I plead the fifth" etc.).
ReplyDeleteNow granted a central government at that given time would probably help the economy get back on its feet from all the war debt and struggles, I believe the country could have compensated without a strong central government and recouped all its losses using other solutions.
All in all, after the rebuttals and revisions to the proposed Constitution it was later ratified and became the ruling document of our country.
Easily the Federalists. Simply put, the country would not have survived for long without the federal government laid down by the constitution. As Hamilton pointed out in the clip today, an early American issue was foreign recognition of the U.S. Under the Articles, other countries view America as thirteen seperate nations and therefore unworthy and unrealiable to trade with. Also, because of Americans' love of grabbing land that doesn't belong to them, the War of 1812 would have probably still happened, except it would have been Canada and Britain vs. Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York. (I'm guessing that's a losing battle for New England).
ReplyDeleteIt is 1787. The Constitutional Convention is currently meeting to decide the fate of the country. I have been informed with information that allows me to choose either side of the Federalist/Anti- Federalist dichotomy. Though "Publius" is a rather intriguing character, I prefer the path of the other side: the Anti- Federalists. This group wisely understands that a declaration of rights is necessary for unabridged living. I need to know what I'm entitled to, so if those men in Philadelphia decide to enumerate my freedoms, I may be persuaded to join their forces.
ReplyDeleteI think I would be leaning more towards the Federalist point of view because America today has become more or less successful with a strong national government. Obviously the Articles of Confederation didn't work for a reason. Giving states too much power can result in regional divisions, financial instability, and economic turmoil.
ReplyDeleteI would of been aligned more with the Federalists, because they supported the bank more then did the Anti-Federalists. I also favor centralizing power in the government, because it allows for more stability in America which leads to a more prosperous country.
ReplyDeleteAfter the United States had successfully seceded from Great Britain, the Articles of Confederation were written, giving the individual states much more power than the central government, because the authors feared creating an oppressive monarchy similar to the one which they had just finished fighting. However, the fact of the matter is that the Articles of Confederation failed because the central government was given far too little power. Under the Articles, there was no federal President, there was no federal court system, there was no national trade regulation, army, and there wasn't even any way for the national government to collect taxes. Because of the weaknesses of the Articles, states began printing their own state-specific currency in favor of the national currency, which along with states levying tariffs on eachothers' goods, seriously hurt domestic trade -- and the feeble central government was powerless to stop it.
ReplyDeleteThe problems with the Articles can be directly attributed to fear of "big government," and while this is a valid concern, paranoia is no excuse for ignoring major problems in governance. The proposed Constitution's elegant system of checks and balances prevented any branch from becoming too powerful, yet still gave the federal government enough authority to correct the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation.
So yeah, obviously I would be a federalist.
If I had to decide based on 2010 information I would go for the Federalists' side. The Constitution has proved to be flexible enough to adapt to the times but a firm enough foundation to consistently support a country for over 200 years. Although the Anti-Federalist complaints were valid, the Constitution has proved to be able to change so that these concerns were no longer necessary. Under the guidance provided by the Constitution, America has grown to become a strong nation economically and politically. There have never been political upheavals as the government follows the Constitutional outline. Overall, the Constitution has proved to be an extremely successful form of government.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010 I would lean to agree with the federalists as their form of government has held for so long without any violent rebellions or other major catastrophic events. However, I do believe that is largely due to the antifederalists and their
ReplyDeleteBill of Rights. Had it not been there, many people would have felt violated by government and perhaps started a rebellion.
This is an interesting question. If the national government was not the clear authoritative government figure within the U.S, then states could’ve done whatever they pleased without nothing to stop them (as evidenced under the Articles of Confederation). Furthermore, the national government has to be stronger than the state governments because of the need to unite the citizens and state to the nation.
ReplyDeleteThis binding is incredibly crucial to the success of any nation. Take for example, Great Britain and her 13 young colonies. Although it wasn't the only reason for the Revolution, the colonies underwent a period of salutary neglect and thus split away from the mother country in terms of their political thought and agendas. Thus, if the national government didn't take charge, the United States would inevitably become the disunited states and we would have a second Europe.
Granted, the protection of individual liberties is awfully important. But the top priority in 1787 was to ameliorate the pains suffered under the frail AOC. In the end, I would be a Federalist.
After seeing the limitations under the Articles of Confederation and the restrictions placed upon the federal government, I would definitely agree with the federalists.
ReplyDeleteThe AOC had tied the hands of the federal government by not allowing them to handle taxes, trade regulation, or currency issues. The states feared a domineering central government, which is understandable because we had just escaped Great Britain's monarchy. But if they had continued under the rules of the AOC, America would've met her demise much earlier. Also, with the three separate branches of the federal government, the system of checks and balances prevents the possibility of another monarchy ruling America.
Although the constitution lacked an enumeration of individual freedoms, it achieved its main goal of fixing the problems of the AOC. In fact, federalists would argue that if they had added a bill of rights, the government could easily encroach on the liberties that were not listed.
Continuing to build our nation under the AOC would’ve been foolish and noxious to the future of America and by ratifying the constitution we ensured a flexible and secure future for the American people that would be led by a stable & strong national government.
Speaking from a 1787 point of view, the country gravely needed centralized authority. The Articles of Confederation obviously were not effective governance, ultimately because there was no adhesive power to tie the country together. As the "baby" states were learning how to walk, they had nothing to fall back on. A burgeoning America could not establish itself as a nation of just independent states with their own individual governments. An ultimate dominion was necessary as a foundation for building a unified NATION rather than a cluster of mini-countries.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking from a 2010 point of view , however, there would be no Bill of Rights without the conditions asserted by the Anti-Federalists. The flexible nature of the Constitution would not be so without the arguments of Aggrippa, Cornelius, and Monteczuma. Because Britain's tyranny brought with it the fear of a strong national government that would use its power to make decisions without regard to its people, insecure Americans needed assurance that the Revolutionary War was not in vain and that their natural rights would be guaranteed to them.
Therefore, knowing what I know today, I would consider myself a moderate Anti-Federalist; not a complete objector of the Constitution, nor one to support a government that can't protect my rights.
At the time the ratification of the Constitution was being debated, I would have been an Anti-Federalist because I would have felt that the elite were trying to control everyone and only made decisions that would only benifit themselves. I would have feared that my individual liberties and freedom were to be compromised if the Federalists got what they wanted. Looking back now I would be a Federalist because the Constitution, along with it's Amendments, is an important article which keeps our country from going into complete anarchy. The government created through the Constitution is well balanced to ensure that the needs of all Americans are viewed and met.
ReplyDeleteConsidering of how I view the government and understanding history today, I would align myself more with the Federalist’s point of view. A formidable, central government was essential to make the government not fail and make it what it is today. Even when Jefferson, who held some anti-federalist views, was president, he found himself in a position of needing more central power. Something weak like the AOC would have failed due to the lack of strong foundation. The constitution may have displayed its errors, but, also, its flexibility. It showed how it can add amendments and these 27 amendments offered more legal protections against the government. The elastic clause’s benefits outweigh its faults in my opinion. Hamilton advocated the bank, which pushed for a more economic sound system. The constitution's flexibility also moves aligned with modern views and makes the constitution still effective today.
ReplyDeleteI would consider myself aligned with the Federalist point of view. Since its ratification in 1788, we have seen the Constitution rise to the occasion countless times. The Constitution has proven throughout history that its stability surpasses that of the Articles of Confederation. Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry and George Mason decried the fact that the constitution mentioned nothing protecting our civil liberties such as the freedom of speech, press, and religion. The Bill of Rights quickly remedies their fears about the central government turning into a kind of monarchy. The fact that the Constitution has survived for so long attests to its flexibility, even throughout the changing views of government and society.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a citizen of these United States while the country is debating ratification of the U.S. Constitution, I would side with the Federalists although I think the points that the Anti-Federalists making are true, because what Anti-Federalist wants are more ideal, but not practical. I think a new nation has to be ruled under well constructed national government which can be supported by the constitution. The view from the 2010, I think the U.S. Consitituion helped the U.S. to focus on the rights of the individuals more than other nations. Also the Constitution made the central government to be stronger than the states, therefore the federal government grew its influence upon the world, because a state only focuses on its own, but a nation focuses on the whole.
ReplyDeleteI would have sided with the Federalists because knowing what I know now, America is doing pretty well with a strong centralized government. When a tree has strong roots, then the whole tree grows to be strong and healthy. Applying that to government, the main government source needs to be strong for the whole nation to be prosperous.
ReplyDeleteHowever I would have agreed on one point with the Anti-Federalists, and that is having some sort of rights for the people. Without rights to the people the government can get more power than necessary.
I would have favored with the Federalists. Our nation has survived off of a strong, central government which is exactly what the Federalists advocated in the past. The Articles of Confederation, which came prior to the U.S. Constitution, was clear evidence that giving state governments more power was something that should have been avoided. Political hardships that came along with the Articles were turned around when the Constitution was approved by the states. The Federalists were also willing to compromise with the Anti-Federalists concerning individual liberties with the Bill of Rights which has protected our rights still today. With the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a political anarchy was prevented for the future and social order was built within the nation. Given the flexibility and different interpretations of the Constitution, any changes that were necessary to create a more stable government have been made or will be made later on. Today, both the elite and common man have been represented in their government and a balance between the separate branches of government has ensured that equality for all is met. Overall, the choices that the Federalists supported resulted in our government today which still stands relatively sound.
ReplyDeleteLooking back from 2010, I probably would side with the Federalists. Even though the idea of a strong central government scared many citizens of the US back then, that type of government was necessary. The Articles of Confederation showed what would go wrong if there wasn't a strong enough government: the states would all be separated and doing their own thing, meaning that they won't stand together. The Constitution provided the federal government the strength to unite all the states together. Also, in order to allay the fears of the anti-federalists, the Bill of Rights was added so the government couldn't take away basic rights. In the early stage of the nation, a strong federal government was necessary so the country wouldn't fall into pieces. I think that the anti-federalists didn't have to worry too much about an oppressive government either since the system of checks and balances in the Constitution made sure no branch would have too much power. To me, all the pieces fit together to say that a strong government is good.
ReplyDeleteI would be more aligned with the Federalists. The failure of the Articles of Confederation shows the need for a strong central government supported by the Federalists. Without a strong central government, the country would go into chaos, as demonstrated in the Primitive Politics games we played during class. Without a referee, the game went out of control. The Anti-Federalists, however, do bring up some important points such as the lack of a Bill of Rights. But a Bill of Rights was eventually added to the Constitution to ensure ratification.
ReplyDeleteClearly we would not be where we are today without the structure and rigidity of a "federal" government which we gained with the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation had its test and failed in many aspects such as the inability of Congress to enforce any of its provisions upon the states. The States acted almost entirely independent of one another in such ways as to preserve their own interests. They created their own currency, weren't subject to taxes, and could even enter into foreign treaties. The Constitution acted as a catalyst for our nation and was able to fix these problems and provide for the coherent and more efficient form of government that we have today.
ReplyDeleteIf this was 1787, during the ratification of the Constitution, I would have to agree with Henry and the Anti-Federalists. Our nation has been built on a centralized government, and decisions being made for the good of the nation was only beneficial to the government themselves. I would have a sense of insecurity with my individual rights and freedoms, not knowing if they would be taken away from me.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many of the points the Federalists have made are ones that I cannot argue with. Having attained knowledge from information in 2010, our government needed a stable and strong national government, more than the state governments, in order to unite this vast nation. The Articles of Confederation obviously didn't give enough fortitude for the nation to be unified.
Ultimately, I would have to side with the Anti-Federalists.
I think I would probably lean more towards the federalist side even though I do believe that protecting individual rights is very important. But as a citizen in 1787 I would recognize that the country needs a more centralized government to prevent chaos and to actually be able to get things done for the people. And knowing what I know now in 2010 I would still side with the federalists because a somewhat powerful centralized government is actually necessary to protect and guarantee the rights of the citizens of the country. Also, a centralized government is needed to keep the country strong.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree much more with the Federalist point of view in regards to ratifying the constitution. Events like Shay's Rebellion showed the weakness of the Articles of the Confederation and that the 13 colonies must be regulated by a strong central government in order to prosper and survive after the Revolutionary War. After all, it was not the effort of 13 individual colonies that won that war, but rather the alliance amongst them that brought victory. The Constitution has provided an amazing foundation for this country and I just cannot imagine a loose band of states having the same economical and political influence upon the world as this nation does today.
ReplyDeleteI think many of us agree that there are positives to both sides looking back on the situation from 2010. When I think of this question, I remember Ferguson explaining to us that Madison was the true Federalist. He eventually sided with Jefferson against Hamilton and Adams but he called himself a Federalist. The idea of Federalism was slightly skewed by Hamilton's more authoritative view. So when we say we would be a moderate federalist or a moderate anti-federalist, maybe what we mean to say is that we would be a true federalist. We would have a unifying government to bring us together as a nation, but our central government would be regulated by the seperation of powers: in theory our government would never abuse our rights because we would control the government and they would control themselves. That way we would retain our rights, and the states would retain the right to control certain issues inside their borders, but things on a global perspective would all be controlled by a limited but strong central government. Like Colin 2 said, we would never have made it as a nation without a unifying constitution. We looked like children to the rest of the world to begin with, but refusing to unite under a common goal would have been a disaster.
ReplyDeleteKnowing what I now know from 2010, I would definitely be more aligned with the Federalists. A strong central government (the goal of the Federalists) is a much safer bet when creating a unified nation. If the Anti-Federalists had their way, the United States would have turned out as little more than a temporary alliance of many tiny nations, resulting in frequent conflict. While the Anti-Federalists made some valid points, the central government and economic focus of Hamilton and the other Federalists made The United States the superpower it is today.
ReplyDeleteI find this question extremely hard to answer because it conflicts with how I feel that it conflicts with how our nation should be run.
ReplyDeleteI would probably side with the Federalist unwillingly. The anti-federalists support smaller governments which give people more individuality and give them more control over their lives where as siding with the federalists means giving up some of your freedom for the good of the common. The reason why I would side with the federalists though is because without a central government I believe that our nation would have not been able to maintain stability. Along with that most of the anti-federalists concerns (outlined here: http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/feds.html) were faced and dealt with. Along with that considering that our country has certainly not fallen into a complete dictator ship showing that the federalist were right with their arguments that the check and balances would work properly there hasn't been anything to worry about.
Almost Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI find this question extremely hard to answer because it conflicts with how I feel our nation should be run.
I would probably side with the Federalist unwillingly. The anti-federalists support smaller governments which give people more individuality and give them more control over their lives where as siding with the federalists means giving up some of your freedom for the good of the common. The reason why I would side with the federalists though is because without a central government I believe that our nation would have not been able to maintain stability. Along with that most of the anti-federalists concerns (outlined here: http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/feds.html) were faced and dealt with. Along with that considering that our country has certainly not fallen into a complete dictator ship showing that the federalists were right with their arguments that the check and balances would work properly there hasn't been anything to worry about.
From a 2010 point of view, I would definitely be more swayed towards the Federalist side led by Madison. I do agree that Americans are entitled to their freedoms and individual liberties. There are also different needs each state has and they should be allowed to do what they need to do, as they please. However, the United States is one whole nation-- not a country with 50 distinct nations. The power of the federal government should most definitely over power the states. With this, the states will be more united and able to function and cooperate as one whole nation.The ineffectiveness of state power being supreme was demonstrated by the Articles of Confederation. States just cannot be ignorant about the issues of other states or the nation as a whole. Everyone needs to work cohesively to better our nation as a whole and further progress the United States economically, politically, and every other aspect.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the federalist's points they made concerning the creation of the Constitution. USA at that time was very divided and not very organized. So they would need a stronger centralized government to bring the nation together, "a nation divided can not stand." The powers granted by the constitution according to the federalists have helped our country today. For example with each state controlling their own currency and economic standards, interstate commerce would be very difficult to execute, and the coinage would be useless in different states, and with the federal government controlling the coinage of currency and interstate commerce regulations, our internal economy flows alot smoother and more organized. In all I believe that our government needs a stronger authority to unify all of the states into one nation, with certain restrictions in order to maintain our civil liberties and a controlled government.
ReplyDeleteVote for federalists. The Anti-federalists' Articles of Confederation didn't cut it. The progress made by the Federalists in the ever uniting Constitution set a standard of patriotism and cohesion in the U.S. which quite certainly stands to this day. On September 11 of the year 2001, and many months following, the U.S. joined together in a way that was necessary to launch the War on Terror. While this armed conflict has been extremely controversial, in my mind, it has indeed been necessary. Without the idea of a conglomerate country, as opposed to a number of different societies barely bound together, such an essential reaction would never have taken place.
ReplyDelete