#1 For this essay our group interaction was ok I guess but could have been a lot better. To begin with we really didn't actually start writing the actual essay until the Monday before it was actually due. This was mainly because over thanksgiving weekend we never contacted each other with what we wanted to have done. Then when Monday rolled out we did assign each person to do a certain task and that caused some problems as well with what was done when it should have been. Overall I think that our group interacted fine just each individual person had some sort of issue somewhere along the line that did cause problems.
#2 I don't think my group used the contract one single time though out this essay. In fact I completely forgot that it was there until this day. However now that I look back at it I can use it in my process or grading my other group members. I think that the contracts as a whole was a good way to try and keep our group organized it is just that we never really used it which really is just saying bad for my own group but whatever.
#3 Our wiki did help out our essay a lot in the long run. That is mainly though because Angi found tons of articles and sites that when we looked back at the wiki we were able to find information that in the end only made the essay better and stuff. I think that using the 4 person wiki group however was a bad thing because in a 4 person group like that there is always going to be those people that don't contribute as much cause more of the work load to fall on someone else.
#4 I think this essay as a whole did cause me to progress more. One thing that I know I improved in was that for the first time I think that I was actually able to find quotes that truly did work to improve the end result of my essay. I also feel that i was able to better follow the rubric for this essay but now that I look at it again I see that I did leave out a few things but ehhh whatever. Overall I feel That with each essay I do I do end up improving somewhat with each one, and hopefully that will show up in the final grade as well.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Essay #3
Carolyn Shaw, Ben Zuidema, Britta Wischer, Angela Kim
During 1787 and 1788 the main topic was that of the possible ratification of the Constitution. Many of the states had mixed reactions which slowed down the process even more, but
When the whole issue of ratifying the constitution came up there were many different beliefs that both sides of the table held, and many of those same beliefs were dear to the other side of the argument as well. Federalists themselves thought that this was the only way that they would ever truly prosper as a country. It was there belief that the only way they could ever start a nation that was truly wonderful and better in every way then
Many Anti-Federalists in
When it comes down to it the issue of anti-federalist verses federalists was an issue that lasted a while.
Personal responses:
Ben: In my own opinion I think that being federalists was the only real thing that would make the American public ever truly prosper. It was the only possible option that would ever cause the chaos to stop and bring order to the people. The truth is that men in their natural state are complete animals. If they are left to do what they please then they will simply do what is best for them without thinking about what might happen to the rest of the world. This is why I believe that they need some form of government and laws to keep them in check. And that is all that the Constitution was doing. It was making it so that states no longer just did what was best for themselves, but to instead help create a country that makes sure every citizen is in some way contributing to form a more peaceful and happy society for all to live in. To put it simply this type of central government was exactly what the people of
Carolyn: In our society there is no real "Federalist" or "Anti-Federalist", at least not at the level of the distinction that there was in the late 1700's. In spite of this lack of real-world application, I think I would have been an Anti-Federalist. In my reality, the Constitution is a mark of pride, something that has kept our country going for over 200 years. But, were I a person of that time, I'm sure I would have reacted differently. I am a great advocate of free will and every person's right to choose as I have always been, and to me that is what the Anti-Federalists signified. At the beginning I took my typical Protagonist vs. Antagonist stance, choosing the Federalists as my Protagonist characters and the Anti-Federalists as my Antagonists, but over time and with much research my views began to change. The Federalists were a group that actively yearned for structure, for someone to tell them what to do and when to do it, while the Anti-Federalists wanted to be able to control themselves and their lands.
Angi: Overall I would side with the Federalists, but there is just one thing that I have to agree with the Anti-federalist's. I believe that a Bill of Rights is needed with the Constitution because although eight states already had such bills in their state constitutions, what about the other states? Though, I agree and fully support the Constitution. Each and every state are individually different, but that does not mean that each state is capable of growing and prospering on their own, to the way they want, without any means of help. In order for the states to grow, I believe that the states require help and support from the other fellow states. The Constitution binds all these states, and the majority have agreed and signed to it. "The Federalists believed in a strong and effective government that would ensure commercial growth and international prestige; the Anti-federalist's saw such goals threatening liberty and preferred local control." (Source of Quote) Although I see both arguments from both groups, I still agree with the federalists because leaving all the "dirty work" with one strong government, would be more reasonable to me, than having smaller groups trying to solve certain issues with their disagreements. I believe that with smaller governing groups, comes more responsibility, more time is needed for meeting with other groups, and it would be more complicating to come to an official agreement.
Britta: In my experience with writing this essay I think I would have sided more with the Federalists. I think this because while writing this essay I learned a lot about how much trouble existed within the colonies. By having all states being part of one central government it would only promote a better environment for the American people. Having the constitution in place only makes life better for the Americans. It made it so people could live their lives as they please within reason. And in the end as we can clearly see today, it did work and our country is better because of it.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
essay #3
I. Federalists In General
A. Federalists (Supporters of the Constitution)
i. Early Federalists, mainly Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Fay, had to convince the people in the states that the new federalism of the Constitution was better than the old confederacy.
ii. While they deeply believed that the United States needed a strong central government to survive, they also knew that many people feared the centralization of power.
iii. While they deeply believed that the United States needed a strong central government to survive, they also knew that many people feared the centralization of power.
iv. The colonial experience with the power of British government was still fresh in people’s minds.
v. The Federalists argued that without a strong national government anarchy, or political disorder would triumph.
vi. They claimed that only a strong national government could protect the new nation from enemies abroad and solve the country’s internal problem. They also claimed that a Bill of Rights was not needed since 8 states already had such bills in their state constitutions.
vii. To gain the necessary support, however, the Federalists promised to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution as the first order of business under a new government.
B. Quotes for Federalists, by Federalists:
i. “The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, make them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds…with the idea of a federal government.” – Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist, No. 9, 1787.
ii. “Two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is…to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations…” – James Madison, The Federalist, No. 10.
C. Anti-Federalists (Opponents of the Constitution)
i. The Anti-Federalists criticized the Constitution for having been drafted in secrecy.
ii. They claimed the document was extralegal, not sanctioned by law, since the Convention had been authorized only to revise the old Articles. They further argued that the Constitution took important powers from the states.
iii. The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights.
iv. They warned that without a Bill of Rights, a strong national government might take away the human rights won in the Revolution.
v. They demanded that the new Constitution clearly guarantee the people’s freedoms.
D. Quotes for Anti-Federalists, by Anti-Federalists:
i. “A consolidation of this extensive continent under on government [under the Constitution of 1787] cannot succeed, without a sacrifice of your liberties.” – Brutus
ii. “In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole [the people], expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to giver their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people…” – Brutus, 1787.
iii. “In…a good constitution…the power is committed to [representatives with] the same feelings…and…the same objects as the people [have] … who transfer to them their authority. There is no possible way to effect this but by an equal, full and fair representation…For without this it cannot be a free government; let the administration of it be good or ill, it still will be a government, not according to the will of the people, but according to the will of a few… A farther objection against the feebleness of the representation [in a Constitution of 1787] is that it will not possess the confidence of the people…If then this government [Constitution of 1787] should not derive support from the good will of the people, it must be executed by force, or not executed at all; either case would lead to the total destruction of liberty.” – Brutus, 1787.
iv. “The necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before…All rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers…If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for…If the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will supposed to be given up.” – Patrick Henry, 1787.
v. “I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government instead of a confederation…and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking…Who authorized them to speak the language of “We, the people,” instead of “We the states”?...If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government of the people of all the states…If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will…destroy the state governments and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice…” – Patrick Henry, 1787.
II. The Constitution
i. The Delegates –
A. William Paterson of New Jersey
B. Franklin Dayton, the oldest member; Jonathan Dayton, the 27-year old youngest – delegates from New Jersey.
C. The average age of delegates = 42.
D. Most of the delegates had studied law, had served in colonial or state legislatures, or had been in the Congress.
E. Well versed in philosophical theories of government advanced by such philosophers as James Harrington, John Locke, and Montesquieu, profiting from experience gained in state politics, the delegates composed an exceptional body, one that left a remarkably learned record of debate.
ii. The New Jersey Plan –
A. This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty.
B. In June, 13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by New Jersey, delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw the states into “hotchpot,” Paterson proposed a “union of the States merely federal.”
C. The “New Jersey resolutions” called only for a revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress and ratified treaties be “the supreme law of the States.”
D. For 3 days the convention debated Paterson’s plan, finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates.
E. The nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup.
F. Madison and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue before “the people,” where ratification was more likely.
iii. History of the Constitution—
A. The states were very different from each other; however, they realized that in order to grow and prosper, they needed the other states. So, delegates from each state got together and a plan for unity was initially submitted to the 2nd Continental Congress on July 12, 1776. After much debate, on November 15, 1777, the states finally established a “firm league of friendship”.
iv. The Debate Over the Constitution –
A. The Constitution that emerged from Philadelphia in mid-September 1787 by its own terms required the ratification of nine states before it could go into operation.
B. Earlier a federal government meant a government of independent entities, such as that established under the Articles. Now the supporters of the Constitution redefined the term by applying it to the government developed at Philadelphia.
C. The opponents of the Constitution were forced on the defensive both in regard to the appellation, Antifederalist, and in regard to the fact that they had no ready alternative to suggest.
D. Federalists countered that the new government was one of delegated powers with no authority to invade individual rights and that any listing of rights would be incomplete. Their adversaries responded that a central government endowed with the authority to pass “necessary and proper” legislation could indeed infringe on individual rights.
E. Antifederalists recognized that they had found a popular issue and the Federalists had to give ground in a number of states by suggesting that they state append amendment proposals to its ratification. These suggestions were considered in the First Congress and a bill of rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, when the requisite number of states had ratified the first 10 amendments that comprise the Bill.
F. The Federalists believed in a strong and effective government that would ensure commercial growth and international prestige; the Antifederalists saw such goals threatening liberty and preferred local control.
G. The Antifederalists saw a strong national government as a threat to the liberties of Americans, believing its distance from the people and its extended territory only increased the threat.
H. The debate over the Constitution lasted less than a year, and the Antifederalists accepted the fact that its popular ratification had legitimated the document. They hoped though, that they could weaken some of the granted powers by suggested amendments.
III. Anti-Federalists / Why New Jersey are Federalists
i. The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty.
ii. Quote à Federalists = Good
A. “The smaller the society the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.” Extend the size of the republic, Madison argued, the country would be less vulnerable to separate factions within it.
IV. Ratification
i. By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the Constitution—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut.
ii. The Constitution was finally finished on September 12, 1787 and made public.
iii. The Constitution was finally ratified and became legal on June 21, 1788.
iv. Order of Ratification:
A. Delaware – December 7, 1787
B. Pennsylvania – December 12, 1787
C. New Jersey – December 18, 1787
D. Georgia – January 2, 1788
E. Connecticut – January 9, 1788
F. Massachusetts – February 6, 1788
G. Maryland – April 28, 1788
H. South Carolina – May 23, 1788
I. New Hampshire – June 21, 1788 (With this states signing, the Constitution became legal)
J. Virginia – June 25, 1788
K. New York – July 26, 1788
L. North Carolina – November 21, 1788 (Initially voted against ratification)
M. Rhode Island – May 29, 1790 (Did not even hold a constitutional convention)
v. Bill Of Rights:
A. Because there was so much interest and debate regarding individual freedoms, a Bill of Rights became law on December 15, 1791.
B. Twelve amendments were proposed but only 10 were passed.
C. The Bill of Rights consisted of the Constitution’s first 10 amendments and included freedom of speech, religion, the press, peaceful assembly, and rights to jury trials.
V. Why we disagree with anti-federalist.
i. The main problem that anti-federalists have is that they fear that with a central government in place it will only lead to a new kind of Britain that is full of tyranny and people not having their voice heard. These beliefs however do not warrant enough of a reason to not ratify the constitution. This is because America as it was during this time had no government at all to truly keep order. They needed some kind of document to do this for the people. This was the constitution, it would allow the American people to finally start off as being an independent country that can truly fend for it’s self. So the reason why anti-federalists were viewed as wrong was pretty much because America needed to start off with some kind of Structure, this was the constitution, and while it probably would have many problems with it at first over time as a country there would always be the ability to change it as long as it would cause the county as a whole to benefit. The Constitution was finally finished on September 12, 1787 and made public.
B.
i. Another issue brought up by the anti-federalists was that of the economics of the south based mostly off of slave labor. This problem came to be the fact that the southern states thought that when they did ratify the constitution that the northern states would start to try and stop using as much slave labor. The south thought that this would only cause their economy to fall and was a huge reason why they decided to be more anti-federalists. This however was not really a problem for the federalists. They still would not do anything to make their economy suffer. So of course salve labor would be there because no one wanted to see their country start to fail. So this is just another fear that anti-federalists had with ratifying the constitution. Pretty much anti-federalists believe the way they do off of fears that in reality never would really come true.
A. Federalists (Supporters of the Constitution)
i. Early Federalists, mainly Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Fay, had to convince the people in the states that the new federalism of the Constitution was better than the old confederacy.
ii. While they deeply believed that the United States needed a strong central government to survive, they also knew that many people feared the centralization of power.
iii. While they deeply believed that the United States needed a strong central government to survive, they also knew that many people feared the centralization of power.
iv. The colonial experience with the power of British government was still fresh in people’s minds.
v. The Federalists argued that without a strong national government anarchy, or political disorder would triumph.
vi. They claimed that only a strong national government could protect the new nation from enemies abroad and solve the country’s internal problem. They also claimed that a Bill of Rights was not needed since 8 states already had such bills in their state constitutions.
vii. To gain the necessary support, however, the Federalists promised to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution as the first order of business under a new government.
B. Quotes for Federalists, by Federalists:
i. “The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, make them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds…with the idea of a federal government.” – Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist, No. 9, 1787.
ii. “Two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is…to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations…” – James Madison, The Federalist, No. 10.
C. Anti-Federalists (Opponents of the Constitution)
i. The Anti-Federalists criticized the Constitution for having been drafted in secrecy.
ii. They claimed the document was extralegal, not sanctioned by law, since the Convention had been authorized only to revise the old Articles. They further argued that the Constitution took important powers from the states.
iii. The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights.
iv. They warned that without a Bill of Rights, a strong national government might take away the human rights won in the Revolution.
v. They demanded that the new Constitution clearly guarantee the people’s freedoms.
D. Quotes for Anti-Federalists, by Anti-Federalists:
i. “A consolidation of this extensive continent under on government [under the Constitution of 1787] cannot succeed, without a sacrifice of your liberties.” – Brutus
ii. “In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole [the people], expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to giver their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people…” – Brutus, 1787.
iii. “In…a good constitution…the power is committed to [representatives with] the same feelings…and…the same objects as the people [have] … who transfer to them their authority. There is no possible way to effect this but by an equal, full and fair representation…For without this it cannot be a free government; let the administration of it be good or ill, it still will be a government, not according to the will of the people, but according to the will of a few… A farther objection against the feebleness of the representation [in a Constitution of 1787] is that it will not possess the confidence of the people…If then this government [Constitution of 1787] should not derive support from the good will of the people, it must be executed by force, or not executed at all; either case would lead to the total destruction of liberty.” – Brutus, 1787.
iv. “The necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before…All rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers…If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for…If the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will supposed to be given up.” – Patrick Henry, 1787.
v. “I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government instead of a confederation…and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking…Who authorized them to speak the language of “We, the people,” instead of “We the states”?...If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government of the people of all the states…If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will…destroy the state governments and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice…” – Patrick Henry, 1787.
II. The Constitution
i. The Delegates –
A. William Paterson of New Jersey
B. Franklin Dayton, the oldest member; Jonathan Dayton, the 27-year old youngest – delegates from New Jersey.
C. The average age of delegates = 42.
D. Most of the delegates had studied law, had served in colonial or state legislatures, or had been in the Congress.
E. Well versed in philosophical theories of government advanced by such philosophers as James Harrington, John Locke, and Montesquieu, profiting from experience gained in state politics, the delegates composed an exceptional body, one that left a remarkably learned record of debate.
ii. The New Jersey Plan –
A. This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty.
B. In June, 13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by New Jersey, delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw the states into “hotchpot,” Paterson proposed a “union of the States merely federal.”
C. The “New Jersey resolutions” called only for a revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress and ratified treaties be “the supreme law of the States.”
D. For 3 days the convention debated Paterson’s plan, finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates.
E. The nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup.
F. Madison and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue before “the people,” where ratification was more likely.
iii. History of the Constitution—
A. The states were very different from each other; however, they realized that in order to grow and prosper, they needed the other states. So, delegates from each state got together and a plan for unity was initially submitted to the 2nd Continental Congress on July 12, 1776. After much debate, on November 15, 1777, the states finally established a “firm league of friendship”.
iv. The Debate Over the Constitution –
A. The Constitution that emerged from Philadelphia in mid-September 1787 by its own terms required the ratification of nine states before it could go into operation.
B. Earlier a federal government meant a government of independent entities, such as that established under the Articles. Now the supporters of the Constitution redefined the term by applying it to the government developed at Philadelphia.
C. The opponents of the Constitution were forced on the defensive both in regard to the appellation, Antifederalist, and in regard to the fact that they had no ready alternative to suggest.
D. Federalists countered that the new government was one of delegated powers with no authority to invade individual rights and that any listing of rights would be incomplete. Their adversaries responded that a central government endowed with the authority to pass “necessary and proper” legislation could indeed infringe on individual rights.
E. Antifederalists recognized that they had found a popular issue and the Federalists had to give ground in a number of states by suggesting that they state append amendment proposals to its ratification. These suggestions were considered in the First Congress and a bill of rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, when the requisite number of states had ratified the first 10 amendments that comprise the Bill.
F. The Federalists believed in a strong and effective government that would ensure commercial growth and international prestige; the Antifederalists saw such goals threatening liberty and preferred local control.
G. The Antifederalists saw a strong national government as a threat to the liberties of Americans, believing its distance from the people and its extended territory only increased the threat.
H. The debate over the Constitution lasted less than a year, and the Antifederalists accepted the fact that its popular ratification had legitimated the document. They hoped though, that they could weaken some of the granted powers by suggested amendments.
III. Anti-Federalists / Why New Jersey are Federalists
i. The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty.
ii. Quote à Federalists = Good
A. “The smaller the society the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.” Extend the size of the republic, Madison argued, the country would be less vulnerable to separate factions within it.
IV. Ratification
i. By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the Constitution—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut.
ii. The Constitution was finally finished on September 12, 1787 and made public.
iii. The Constitution was finally ratified and became legal on June 21, 1788.
iv. Order of Ratification:
A. Delaware – December 7, 1787
B. Pennsylvania – December 12, 1787
C. New Jersey – December 18, 1787
D. Georgia – January 2, 1788
E. Connecticut – January 9, 1788
F. Massachusetts – February 6, 1788
G. Maryland – April 28, 1788
H. South Carolina – May 23, 1788
I. New Hampshire – June 21, 1788 (With this states signing, the Constitution became legal)
J. Virginia – June 25, 1788
K. New York – July 26, 1788
L. North Carolina – November 21, 1788 (Initially voted against ratification)
M. Rhode Island – May 29, 1790 (Did not even hold a constitutional convention)
v. Bill Of Rights:
A. Because there was so much interest and debate regarding individual freedoms, a Bill of Rights became law on December 15, 1791.
B. Twelve amendments were proposed but only 10 were passed.
C. The Bill of Rights consisted of the Constitution’s first 10 amendments and included freedom of speech, religion, the press, peaceful assembly, and rights to jury trials.
V. Why we disagree with anti-federalist.
i. The main problem that anti-federalists have is that they fear that with a central government in place it will only lead to a new kind of Britain that is full of tyranny and people not having their voice heard. These beliefs however do not warrant enough of a reason to not ratify the constitution. This is because America as it was during this time had no government at all to truly keep order. They needed some kind of document to do this for the people. This was the constitution, it would allow the American people to finally start off as being an independent country that can truly fend for it’s self. So the reason why anti-federalists were viewed as wrong was pretty much because America needed to start off with some kind of Structure, this was the constitution, and while it probably would have many problems with it at first over time as a country there would always be the ability to change it as long as it would cause the county as a whole to benefit. The Constitution was finally finished on September 12, 1787 and made public.
B.
i. Another issue brought up by the anti-federalists was that of the economics of the south based mostly off of slave labor. This problem came to be the fact that the southern states thought that when they did ratify the constitution that the northern states would start to try and stop using as much slave labor. The south thought that this would only cause their economy to fall and was a huge reason why they decided to be more anti-federalists. This however was not really a problem for the federalists. They still would not do anything to make their economy suffer. So of course salve labor would be there because no one wanted to see their country start to fail. So this is just another fear that anti-federalists had with ratifying the constitution. Pretty much anti-federalists believe the way they do off of fears that in reality never would really come true.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Reflection on essay #2
1) How did I progress from my first essay to my second?
Overall I think since this second essay was in such a different style then the first that I can't really evaluate whether I progressed or not. I think that the way I wrote the thesis however did improve somewhat. And also I think I was able to finally find 3 reliable sources that did help my essay out a lot in the long run. Overall I think that I was able to improve my creative process though this assignment. I feel like I deserve at least a Pass. Instead of that NP/LP I seem to get in every other assignment I do for Craig. I would say I deserve this grade because I feel like I did fulfill what was asked of me for this assignment. And also feel like I was able to pull out most of the more controversial topics when it came to this topic.
2) How did my writing process mesh with my partner?
I feel like over all me and Isis made a pretty good group. She was very easy to work with and overall I enjoyed having her as my partner. I did find that both of us however were procrastinators. This didn't really help at all but in the end we were able to finally get our stuff done. Isis helped a lot when it came to researching and was able to get her part of the conversation done when it needed to be. I would give Isis a pass for this assignment as well cause we both did equal work when it came to this assignment.
3) What made our group collaboration work?
I think that is was just Isis's personality that made our group successful. Her personality and mine work together so well that both of us were able to do our work without ever really having any disagreements. Isis also is more creative then I am so a lot of the creativity in the end project came more from her, where the more factual things from me. Overall I feel like working with Isis has made me improve more when it comes to being more creative. Hopefully this will show up more in my later work. As a whole I believe that our project should get a passing grade because I feel like we were able to do all that was asked of us for this project. We also picked a topic that I believe was more creative and original then others. And hopefully also included information that people will find both relevant and interesting.
Overall I think since this second essay was in such a different style then the first that I can't really evaluate whether I progressed or not. I think that the way I wrote the thesis however did improve somewhat. And also I think I was able to finally find 3 reliable sources that did help my essay out a lot in the long run. Overall I think that I was able to improve my creative process though this assignment. I feel like I deserve at least a Pass. Instead of that NP/LP I seem to get in every other assignment I do for Craig. I would say I deserve this grade because I feel like I did fulfill what was asked of me for this assignment. And also feel like I was able to pull out most of the more controversial topics when it came to this topic.
2) How did my writing process mesh with my partner?
I feel like over all me and Isis made a pretty good group. She was very easy to work with and overall I enjoyed having her as my partner. I did find that both of us however were procrastinators. This didn't really help at all but in the end we were able to finally get our stuff done. Isis helped a lot when it came to researching and was able to get her part of the conversation done when it needed to be. I would give Isis a pass for this assignment as well cause we both did equal work when it came to this assignment.
3) What made our group collaboration work?
I think that is was just Isis's personality that made our group successful. Her personality and mine work together so well that both of us were able to do our work without ever really having any disagreements. Isis also is more creative then I am so a lot of the creativity in the end project came more from her, where the more factual things from me. Overall I feel like working with Isis has made me improve more when it comes to being more creative. Hopefully this will show up more in my later work. As a whole I believe that our project should get a passing grade because I feel like we were able to do all that was asked of us for this project. We also picked a topic that I believe was more creative and original then others. And hopefully also included information that people will find both relevant and interesting.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Loylism vs. Patriotism Isis and Ben (edited version)
Character Background:
Patriot88jonnyboy is really a man by the name of John William. He is a merchant from Massachusetts and sells just about any good that people might need. John however is a die hard patriot. He is a visionary of his time and has many ideas that most patriots haven’t even thought of yet. In town he is thought of as a simple man who simply is trying to make a living for himself. However he really is much more. He tries to change the views of all other colonists to try and realize that his ideas are the only ones that really matter.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist is really a woman named Bridget Smith. She was raised as a proper British woman and believes that being loyal to the king is the best thing for everyone. She is a single mother of two. Her husband died almost a year ago in a strange incident involving a cow. Bridget was forced to try and fend for her family as best she could. She kept her deceased husband’s vegetable farm going and tries her best to sell as many of the crops as she can. Luckily she has friends like John William around to help her when she needs it.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist- Hey there good sir. How is the day treating thee?
Patriot88jonnyboy-Not to shabby. Just out on the streets all day trying to earn money to feed myself.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist - I know what you mean. It is hard to try and support ourselves, not to mention our families with all of these problems that the patriots keep causing.
Patriot88jonnyboy -You do know I am a patriot right?
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist -Yeah but I just don’t understand how you can go and disobey the rules that our king set down for us. After all he is doing what he thinks is best for all of Britain. When you truly think about it Being loyal to the king seems like the best option for us. Not only will our trade continue but we will still be in good terms with our king.
Patriot88jonnyboy - Yeah I know that. But when it comes down to it he just doesn’t know what it is like over here in the colonies. So what gives him rights to set our laws? We the people of this new land must be able to govern ourselves if we ever want to truly make a prosperous land for us to live.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist -I get what you are saying. But you make it sound like you no longer even want to be British anymore. And if we aren’t British anymore then I just don’t know what else there is.
Patriot88jonnyboy -Our sense of identity is not what truly matters. All that matters is what is best for our own people, and that is to have laws that truly will help make our land thrive.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist -That may be true. But with all of these taxes going on, not only are we repaying our debt for Britain’s help but as a merchant I myself make a better profit.
Patriot88jonnyboy -Yeah I know that. It makes our lives a lot better but at the same time everyone else keeps getting money taken from them that they never agreed to pay. How can you agree to this treatment of our people day after day? The King just keeps sending us laws and taxes without our consent at all. This is just wrong so how can you tolerate it?
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist -What can I say? I am a little greedy but if I wasn’t then my whole family would probably suffer a lot more.
Patriot88jonnyboy -See that is the problem with you loyalists, you are unable to grasp the big picture. We are far away from Great Britain so we must have laws that are different that help us out more in the end.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist -STFU!!! I don’t care what you have to say. We are British people and we must act like that and follow what our king says no matter what.
Patriot88jonnyboy - You are such a stupid little person. That is why we patriots act the way we do. We fight the king’s laws and taxes so we can better our country as a whole. We start movements to stop the taxes and have demonstrations to show this. The Boston Tea Party for example was a way to show how we won’t pay ridiculous taxes for our goods anymore.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist -All that demonstration did was waste more of our money and cause more problems with our relationship with Britain. You must yourself understand that almost all of our goods are sold to Britain. If we cause them to stop trade with us then all that will happen is our economy will suffer and no one will win in the end. Our only way to keep our colony strong is to keep a good relationship with Britain and follow what we are told to do.
Patriot88jonnyboy -You have this naive way of thinking. I believe that we colonies if we have to, can fend for ourselves. We have the ability to keep ourselves wealthy. If we trade only with other colonies not only will we have more goods here but we will not need to pay British taxes anymore. We can start our own government and start to have laws and taxes that will actually be good for us.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist - Yeah I guess. But I don’t see how you can think that. We have always been British and will continue to be British also. I just don’t think anything good will happen if we change our ways. If we aren’t part of Britain then who are we? We would have no identity and that is not something I want.
Patriot88jonnyboy – I know. But we need to form a new identity. We need to try and change.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist – Maybe, but if you patriots would’ve just followed the king’s laws like the stamp act, then we wouldn’t be going through these issues.
Patriot88jonnyboy - We just wanted to have a say in what OUR colonies have to do. Instead of the King setting up all these rules and taxes without our consent, need I remind you!
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist - well it doesn’t change how powerful he is. HE IS THE KING…. He can do what he feels. He doesn’t need your consent. If it wasn’t for him the colonies wouldn’t have been formed to begin with.
Patriot88jonnyboy - Ok. But was it really necessary to place taxes on every paper and document??? What a waist of money which isn’t that easy to come by anyway. That is why we patriots don’t want to be under the king’s rule. The king doesn’t even consider us British anymore.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist -Who knows exactly? It doesn’t matter whether that is necessary or not.
Patriot88jonnyboy - How can you say that??? You do know that the taxes were charged to your fellow loyalists don’t you??
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist - How can you not obey the king? How can you go against all he says? What makes you think you’re so right and he’s so wrong??
Patriot88jonnyboy - First of all, it’s not that we want to disobey the king. We just don’t agree with everything he has done thus far with the colonies. He hasn’t been here; he doesn’t know what we go through, or what our colonies have become. It’s not a matter of right and wrong. WE want what may be better.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist - But the king IS BETTER. He is ruler of England and it’s unbelievable to think that anyone would even try to go against his rule. I don’t understand.
Patriot88jonnyboy – And that is the problem with you loyalists. You are unable to grasp the big picture. You need to realize that we are becoming our own land. If we don’t start to try and separate from the kingdom then nothing good will ever happen for us. So I will just leave you be to try and understand this better. We will talk again soon I hope. And maybe you will even try to be more open-minded and understand where I am coming from.
Hey_itz_BS_the_loyalist –Maybe I will. Well goodbye I will talk with you later my friend.
Sources:
1) The American Promise Text book
2) http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir_res1765.htm
3) http://www.si.umich.edu/SPIES/index-people.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
