How the Constitution Endangered Freedom Why did some Founding Fathers think that the Constitution might endanger freedom? What is the response of those who favored the Constitution – how did they think it would protect freedom or improve on the Articles of Confederation? Aspects of endangered freedom were; slavery, which was not mentioned in the constitution, as well as promoting the complicated checks and balances in the government and infringing on liberty’s. The founding fathers thought the constitution might endanger freedom due to; slavery in the constitution. Also, those who favored the constitution thought to protect freedom or improve on the Articles of Confederation by the creating and expanding on checks and balances and liberty (Foner, 2012). Slavery in the constitution First the founding fathers thought the constitution might endanger freedom due to slavery in the constitution or there lack of the word. Madison had wrote about slavery and its issues which divided delegates in many gatherings and those who came together in where slave owners and those against slavery, to discuss slavery in the Constitution. That the wording of “slavery” didn’t appear in the constitution, a sensitive area delegates feared. The Constitution prohibited Congress from doing away with African slave trade for twenty years. It also, counted for a large sum of the populations when determining each states representation in the House of Representatives and electoral votes for president. There were limits on Congress’s power to tax states that had slave property. Also, there where compromises in the constitution that where slavery clauses, to try and find a balance between the slavery pro’s and con’s. Yet, this seemed to embed slavery ... ... middle of paper ... ... constitution which was servitude, yet they still participated in the actions and ownership of it, even though many were against it, and infringing on human rights until they felt they could abolish it. Also the founding fathers promotions of checks and balances in the government and liberties with the thought of protecting and expanding freedom and improve on the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution (Foner, 2012). How the Constitution Endangered Freedom References Akers, B. (2008). Spreading Liberty with a Bayonet. New American (08856540), 24(11), 34. CSU-Global. (2014). Give Me Liberty. Retrieved from: https://csuglobal.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1385417-dt-content-rid-6634284_2/courses/KEY_HST201/courseModules_spring2014d/hst201_4/hst201_4.html Foner, E. (2012). Give Me Liberty! An American History. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company
Foner, E. (2010). The People Party. In E. Foner, Give me Liberty! An American History (pp. 680-682). Canada: W.W Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110.
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
Supporters of a constitution, lacking a bill of rights, were called Federalists. The Federalists included members such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, whom wrote a series of essays that were designed to inform and persuade the public of their views pertaining to the issues of the day. Among these views was whether a bill of rights should be added to the constitution. The Federalists, via Alexander Hamilton, dealt with this issue in a foremost way in their 84th essay. In the 84th essay Hamilton begins by explaining that a bill of rights, which are “in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.”
"The American constitution recognized slavery as a local constitution within the legal rights of the individual states. But in the North slavery was not adaptable to the local economy, and to many, it contradicted the vision of the founding fathers for a nation in which all men are to be free. The South considered slavery as a necessary institution for the plantation economy. It was linked to the local culture and society. As the United states expanded, the North worried that the South would introduce slavery into the new territories. Slavery had become both a moral issue and a question of political power." (Kral p61)
The two factors that shape the Constitution as being pro-slavery: the necessity of the slaveholders to protect their private property by the means of the law and the limited support of the North for the abolition at the time of the drafting of the Constituti...
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2014. Book.
The US constitution was written with great vision to create strong nation. The bill of right were written, it provide all humans with rights. The writers of the constitution we hypocrites, they didn’t abide by what they preached. Thomas Jefferson wrote himself “ all men are created equal” but he owned slaves. The founding father didn’t look or even think about slavery when they wrote the constitution. They were pre-occupied in getting the southern state to join the union and sign the new constitution. They southern states believed that the federal government shouldn’t mess with the issue on slavery because slavery was a state issue.
Various parts of the Constitution affected people back then as well as today’s modern day. Back in the late 1700’s, the United States were still trying to strengthen the newly formed government. The supporters of the Constitution, The Federalists, believed in having a strong government, whereas the Anti-Federalist did not support the constitution and believed that the government replicated a tyranny. Although there were supporters and non-supporters, American leaders used the Constitution as a foundation to create a stable and strong government.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
Since the advent of human government, one of the principle fears held by the constituents of the government has always been to prevent any form of tyranny or abuse within it. Tyranny can be loosely described as one person or a group of people having total power in a government leading to the subjugation and oppression of people’s rights. Many new nations wish to eliminate any aspect of their government that may eventually lead to tyranny. The United States was no different in this respect; the framers of the Constitution longed to have no signs of tyranny in their government because they had gone to war with Britain for that very reason. In 1787, a group of fifty-five delegates came from throughout the states to meet in Philadelphia to discuss the problems with the current government. The existing Articles of Confederation posed a monumental problem for these individuals; they recognized that the central government was almost entirely powerless under these articles. Besides this, another problem was that the government lacked a court system or a chief executive. The central government did not possess the power to tax the states either. These problems warranted change which prompted these men to get together. This new constitution they were to create was supposed to guard the people against all kinds of tyranny whether it be of a few, the many or majority, or even a single individual. This seemed virtually insurmountable a task to accomplish but was ultimately achieved. The Constitution guards against tyranny by having a central and state government that cannot overrule or have more power over the other, establishing the separation of powers to keep anyone from abusing it, and having a sys...
4.de Toqueville, Alexis. Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 358.
28.) Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History. 4th ed. (W.W. Norton, 2012), 920.
Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009), 323.
12 Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty!: An American History,97213 SNCC Statement of Purpose (October 2010), Week 7 Documents, Oregon State University, Department of History, Corvallis, OR HST 203.
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty. 3rd ed. Vol. Two. New York: Norton &, 2011. Print.