, the Early American Republic faced numerous hardships from the beginning. More specifically, the framework, transitioning from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of our multi-faceted government deemed itself controversial. In order for one to determine if the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was a major roadblock for American politics, we must analyze both standpoints of the argument. The two major views on this divide were the Federalists and Anti- Federalists. Federalists, predominantly landowners and industry workers, enjoyed the control by a strong, central government. On the contrary, Anti- Federalists, predominantly backcountry farmers and debtors, were already on the verge of tyranny …show more content…
Gordon Wood proclaims in Document 1, that the Articles of Confederation are too weak of a structure to handle a growing nation of this extent. Starting by listing numerous problems with, “The Congress could not tax and pay its bills. It could not feed, clothe, or supply the army. It could not levy tariffs to regulate trade or to retaliate against the mercantilist European empires.” Wood says the inability to tax, maintain an army, or have tariffs leaves the United States without money, unable to operate. In Document 2, John Jay explicitly identifies as a Federalist when he states the benefits of being under the Constitution. “If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment.” Jay is saying that with a proper militia, organized government and treasury, and regained trust through our citizens and credit, we are more likely to flourish rather than struggle, as we can befriend other nations easier. While the United States gained the reputability it desired, it took numerous compromises both internally and externally.
Anti-Federalists, were predominantly in the lower echelon of society, fought for soverignty
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In the books The Quartet and Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Ellis and Joyce Appleby discuss their thoughts on two important moments in American history and how they believe them to be revolutionary. The Quartet describes the political situation of the United States immediately following the American Revolution and how it made the transformation from a confederation into a republic. To do this, it follows the actions of four prominent men – George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison – as they work toward their goal of bringing about a new national government and discusses nationalism, issues such as economics and expansion, and arguments about personal, state, and federal powers. He argues that the debate over the Constitution was between “nationalists” and “confederationists”, that the second Revolution was a by-product of the first in that it took the systems of the newly-independent states and reworked them into a coherent national collective, and that without this change, the United States couldn’t have become a modern model of government.
After the colonies gained independence, the founding fathers soon found that becoming a new independent nation was going to be a difficult task. The biggest task was deciding on the division of power in the government. This issue divided the people into two groups, the federalists and the Jeffersonian republicans. Alexander Hamilton led the federalists and Thomas Jefferson led the republicans. These two important men in history would later show how the challenges of becoming a new nation. In this essay I will be analyzing the ideas of Linda K. Kerber’s “The Fears of the Federalists,” to Drew R. McCoy’s “The Fears of the Jeffersonian Republicans.” Furthermore, comparisons will be made about both essays to gain a better understanding of the struggles of government in early America.
There exists a similarity between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, 1987). However, they disagree on the size of government and the republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalist wanted a small republic with a state government. In this essay, I generally agree with the statements except the part where federalists were republicans because they envisioned the commonweal of the national community. The weakness of this argument is that there may be a false impression that the candidate is truly virtuous. Thus, when he becomes the national government,
First, when the political parties emerged in the 1790’s it was evident that their ideologies were vastly different. The Republican Party wanted a representative form of government that functioned “in the interest of the people.” This party, led by Thomas Jefferson, supported a limited central government, with individual states retaining a majority of the control. Jefferson’s vision was for a nation of farmers, and farmers do not need big government to survive. They feared a large central government would take away the rights of the people. On the other hand, the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, supported a strong central government that would pursue policies in support of economic growth, which in turn would provide the freedom the people wanted. Hamilton’s followers also supported a diverse economy.1 It is important to note here however, that both parties knew they would have to become national parties in order to win any elections and both parties had followers in the north and in the south. There was no sectional divide in the parties.
With a failing, and week Articles of Confederation loosely uniting the state, delegates from each states set out to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they made an extremely polarizing Constitution, which was debated on and revised in the years to come. In these debates were parties, with two entirely different political ideologies and philosophies. The Federalists believed that they should ratify the Constitution now, and they would amend the Constitution later. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution shouldn’t be ratified, because it didn't guarantee the citizen’s rights and gave too much power to the government.
In the late 1700’s a debate broke out about the Constitution and its ratification. The debate was between two groups of Americans, Federalists, who supported the ratification, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Federalists supported the constitution’s ratification because they wanted a strong government to rely on, however, Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because they wanted more individual power and a weaker central government. Anti-Federalists were Americans who opposed the Constitution and its ratification for various reasons including their fear of individual rights being lost.
After the United States declared its independence in 1776, a Congress formed to develop a new stable government and sought to build the very first constitution fulfilling early republican ideals through creating The Articles of Confederation during the midst of the American Revolution. Eventually, this lead into the creation of the Constitution- an accidental yet purposeful replacement - just a mere decade later due to the immense problem-prone regulations and irregular stipulation ranging from economic disorganization to a counterproductive legislative branch. In other words, the beginning of the republican experiment was consequently and truly an utter disaster that caused much discourse to the feeble fragmentation of the newly formed United
Beginning with the Articles of Confederation, our nascent country began its path to self-governance. No longer “property” of the British Empire, the task at hand was how to effectively govern these newly formed states. Apparently a fan of symmetry, the
November 15th, 1777, the Continental Congress created the Articles of Confederation. During this time, the Americans’ looked back on their experience with the powerful British government and decided they would do the opposite. The American’s wanted to ensure enough power for the government to do its job, but not creating too much power for individuals or groups. With the idea of the dreadful government in Britain, the colonist decided to use their new power and divide the federalism in a way that gives the states more power. Some of their priorities included a protection of rights and liberties as well as individual state power. Within this confederation, all the states had their independence and their own sovereign government. With this “firm league of friendship”, there opened a door for many drawbacks.
There were significant differences between the governance system under the articles of confederation and the new constitution. The weaknesses of the later caused bad experiences and the clamor for a new constitution. For instance, under the articles of confederation, congress had no power over interstate or foreign commerce (Constitution Society, n.d). States made their decisions that were not always in the best interest of the whole nation. In addition, all federal laws were enforced by the states because congress did not have the capacity to implement them. The outcome is that some laws were ignored or misinterpreted (Ablavsky, 2014). This paper compares and contrasts the form of governance under the Articles of Confederation
With all of the problems in America during 1788, the talk about a new constitution was the top of that list. The challenges that followed after the victory of the Revolutionary war made America a weak and unstable country. Having so little authority in our national government was something that the Americans wanted. The government was set by the articles of confederation, which made the thirteen states governments strong. It developed a loose association among the states and set up a federal government with very limited power. After a while they started to notice that without a central government, America was weak and that they needed to revise the Articles. This then led to the federalist vs. anti-federalist debate. In this paper I will show
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.
With the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States disagreements triggered a split in the colonist political views placing them into two categories; the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists. This book review explains the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, and describes them as a group of individuals who identified the weaknesses and potential issues that could arise from the Ratification of The Constitution. It describes this group as the intermediates or even rationalists, as they pointed out the flaws, and what could arise from the changes. The Anti-Federalist had valid concerns, but also had clear expectations regarding the powers of the Federal Court and how it affected citizens. In their fight with the Federalists, the Anti-federalists
This book would benefit scholars who need a direct quote from the Constitution of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, or the Articles of Confederation. No fillers exist within the book; therefore, no background information
In a debate between a Federalist and an anti-Federalist over the ratification of the Constitution, many opposing views would arise. The Federalist’s would advocate the ratification of the Constitution in order to manage the debt and lingering tensions that followed the American Revolution. They believed that a nation as large as the U.S. needed a strong, central government in order to be able to function properly. The Federalist would argue that the ratification of the Constitution would allow the national government to better collect funds to pay off debt, create a uniform currency, and establish and maintain a professional military for defense. Federalist’s believe that in order for this nation to be successful, it must rely on commercialism