Patrick Henry

According to the text, in 1765,Patrick Henry became a Legislator for the House of Burgesses, in west virginia.He made a series of resolutions against the Stamp Act. The stamp act imposed business that are regulated. Patrick henry said people have a right to Govern

Last year, our new government was formed. We agreed to what the Articles had said. It seems that now we are having issues with what we had once agreed with. In this newsletter, I will only address four of the most problematic things in the Articles of Confederation. However there are many more that will not be brought to light today.

The United States Constitution begins with the simple phrase “We the People”. Yet, with three simple words, the ideology it stands for has shaped the entire country (O’Connor et al., 2011). The short phrase signifies that the document, and thus, the government, is based upon the people themselves. The Constitution reflects the culture and ideologies of its citizens. Similarly, state constitutions reflect the people, albeit in a more specific locality. The key differences between the United States Constitution and that of local states are due to the distinctions between the scope and characteristics of the people they govern.

He was an outspoken opponent of the Stamp and Townshend Acts levied by England, he stirred the seeds of discord with his famous “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech to the Virginia Assembly in 1775. Henry served a role in the overthrow of the royally appointed Virginia leadership and was elected governor multiple times. Although he opposed the formation of the U.S. Constitution as a threat to the liberties of the people and the rights of the states, his criticisms

After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders believed it was necessary to hold a National Convention to revise it in order for it to become the Constitution. After the signing of the Constitution, two groups were created. The Anti-federalists who composed a series of essays one known as An Old Whig V (1787) suggests that an inclusion of a Bill of Rights would be more effective in clarifying the limits of the government, while others, the Federalists, opposed to it. To understand the effects of ratifying a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, both sides must be analyzed. This paper examines An Old Whig V’s arguments against the Federalist, mainly letters from Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to propose that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights allows citizens to verbalize their right of protection in regards to the occasion of being shown in the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

According to the passage, “Patrick Henry Speaks Against Ratification of the Constitution (1788)”, “Patrick Henry, the noted Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, opposed a federal form of government in the United States.” He was a major key during the late 1700’s. He helped to lead many people in the right direction. He believed that the citizens of the country were good, and he also believed that they were happy. After a meeting in Philadelphia, that all came to an end according to Patrick Henry. In the article stated above it says, “Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted.” That one meeting turned the entire town in a different direction. The spirit of the community was instilled in the young and old to bring everyone back together.

Richard Henry Lee is another Anti-Federalist who displays his views throughout his article. Lee discusses some arguments, but the main point of his article is about how the Constitution came to be and the problems associated with it. He says "by making tender, suspension, and paper money laws, have given just cause of uneasiness to creditors. By these and other causes, several orders of men in the community have been prepared, by degrees, for a change in government" (Lee in Unger, p. 119). Lee believes that if these things had not occurred, the idea of a new government would have never been thought of. Another point that Lee makes is about the delegates that were chosen to go to the convention. He says that the intentional purpose of the convention was to amend

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

Patrick Henry, born in Virginia in 1736, was a lawyer and great orator, as well as public officer for nearly 30 years, who believed strongly in citizens’ right to bear arms, especially in face of Great Britain’s injustice towards the colonists, and whose speech to the Virginia Convention lead to the persuasion of his delegation and, therefore, participated in the start of the Revolutionary War. (Probst 100) (Colonial Williamsburg Patrick Henry). In his speech, Henry, whose patriotism had lead him to represent his region since 1765, addressed those who did not want to organize a militia for Virginia. (Probst 100) (Henry 102). One of the first and most important arguments Henry makes is that the question of whether or not to organize a

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

The Articles of Confederation were written and ratified in 1781 and the first thing it states is, “We the People”. This phrase was written because they were afraid of strong government. This first statement shows that we as a people have to stick together and not become separated by a higher power, being government. We need a strong State Government. We can’t repeat the same thing we revolted and fought for, independence, and a will for a perfect government without an exceeding amount of power. and we can't let the same thing happen again

Here in Colony Critique, we are anti-federalists. We observe that avoiding tyranny is at utmost importance in this country, especially after the Revolutionary War and breaking away from the tyrannical Britain. The constitution should not be ratified because it threatens the avoidance of another tyranny in America for the following reasons: First, notice that the biggest threat to freedom is a powerful federal government. The constitution is giving too much power to the federal government. Even the balance of power between the three branches of government is not enough to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical.

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its

“In a word, it’s at it’s end, and unless a remedy is soon applied, anarchy and confusion will inevitably ensue” said Thomas Jefferson. There were many problems with the current government, so the gathering of the Constitutional Convention was needed for a cleansing and revising of the government. There were many challenges facing the Convention, including keeping the meeting a secret from the public and the current government, convincing the delegates to agree on issues, and finding knowledgeable and influential people who were enthusiastic about doing the work needed. The old government had be replaced so they had to try and get together to make something better and more effective central government