The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.
To the opponents of the Constitution, many warning signs of potential despotism were visible in the proposed government -- the sole power of taxation, the lack of protection of freedoms, the formation of a large military force, the dissolving of states' powers, and above all, the concentration of powers in the hands of a few. It is this last issue that seemed to be of greatest concern to the anti-Federalists, and logically so, because all other powers and laws prescribed by the Constitution were to be interpreted and e...
Looking back in history (1781-1787) at the debate over ratification of the Constitution we can see that the making of the constitution was a long drawn out battle between the federalists and the Anti-Federalists. There were concerns as to the inherent weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, such as the lack of action during Shay’s Rebellion, the issue over taxation, as well as the problematic consensus required by all states to change any one of the Articles. There was a fear that if given too much power the executive leader would become like the king they had just fought a revolution to free themselves from. This fear of giving too much power to a centralized government was what made the Articles so weak. The purpose of this paper is to examine the two sides of the debate of constitutional ratification, The Federalists (and the Federalist papers) as well as the Anti-Federalists (and the Anti-Federalist Papers) and look at their influence on the Constitution. By comparing the essentials of The Constitution as well as The Articles of Confederation we will be able to see the differences between the two. These differences will show us not only the weaknesses of the Articles but the strength of the new constitution. A second objective, where possible make what “if” statements as to what would have happened if the Articles were not replaced, and the Constitution was not written.
As our fellows have witnessed an evident failure of the government under the Articles of Confederation, we have successfully drafted a new Constitution aiming to establish a more effective form of government as ruled by its people. Antifederalists contend that the newly drafted Constitution not only is absent of an indispensable Bill of Rights, but also is the source to abuse of power in a strong central government while leaving states powerless, and a large republic ruled by a few elites would hinder true democracy. However, the concerns of the Antifederalists concerns about the Constitution is superfluous since the new Constitution itself does provide protections of the fundamental rights and liberties, the separation of powers helps eliminate the fear of usurpation, and a large republic would prevent a faction from dominating the majority.
To some people Andrew Jackson is remembered as the, metaphorically speaking, “People’s King” and is accused of dictator-like political moves. However, Andrew Jackson was quite the contrary, he was exalted amongst the people for being the new era of democracy: instilling a political revolution, the protection of the American people, and social equality among the masses. Therefore, Andrew Jackson was a precedent of democratic rule in the United States.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
In The Other Founders, Saul Cornell examines the history of debate and dissent in the forming of the United States government. In making his argument, Cornell points out that Anti-Federalist thought was not just a single line of reasoning that can be individualized into one basic theme. Instead, the author notes that the views of the Anti-federalists were as varied as the people who held them. Instead of simply being for “states rights,” as many historians have asserted, Anti-federalists expressed concerns about courts, juries, the rights of the people, the use of the “public sphere” in political debates, and whether the framers had devised a truly federal government or an all-powerful national one. All of these issues all ran through the
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
The United States Founding Fathers compromised a new form of government to create an organized and functional society for the future generations of America. The British’s monarchy proved to be unsatisfactory to the colonists, and they wanted to create an advanced authority that would help America through all the stages the country would endure. The creation of separate states were necessary for the prevention of a tyranny from forming (Wood). The inspiration to create a new government was influenced by the philosophe’s ideas that emerged during the Enlightenment.
Human beings inevitably feel the need to incorporate rankings, or scales, into our daily lives. Groups of individuals define the aspects of the what it means to be on top of such scales, and shone those who can not live up to the ideals imposed upon them. During the Nineteenth Century, this generated a racial hierarchy, which ultimately encouraged colonial super powers to civilize villages deemed static and savage, or inferior, by taking over their lands, thus creating Empires. Overtime, imperial governments around the world have watered down facts and destroyed documents relating to their rule and decolonization, in turn creating difficulties for historians. Caroline Elkins, professor of history, described this issue,