 Show
16b. AntifederalistsPatrick Henry delivers his famous "If this be treason, make the most of it!" speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses. The Antifederalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. Although less well organized than the Federalists, they also had an impressive group of leaders who were especially prominent in state politics. Ranging from political elites like James Winthrop in Massachusetts to Melancton Smith of New York and Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia, these Antifederalist were joined by a large number of ordinary Americans particularly yeomen farmers who predominated in rural America. The one overriding social characteristic of the Antifederalists as a group was their strength in newer settled western regions of the country. On August 31, 1787, George Mason declared he would "rather chop off my right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands." In spite of the diversity that characterized the Antifederalist opposition, they did share a core view of American politics. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States lay in the government's potential to become corrupt and seize more and more power until its tyrannical rule completely dominated the people. Having just succeeded in rejecting what they saw as the tyranny of British power, such threats were seen as a very real part of political life. To Antifederalists the proposed Constitution threatened to lead the United States down an all-too-familiar road of political corruption. All three branches of the new central government threatened Antifederalists' traditional belief in the importance of restraining government power. The President's vast new powers, especially a veto that could overturn decisions of the people's representatives in the legislature, were especially disturbing. The court system of the national government appeared likely to encroach on local courts. Meanwhile, the proposed lower house of the legislature would have so few members that only elites were likely to be elected. Furthermore, they would represent people from such a large area that they couldn't really know their own constituents. The fifty-five members of the proposed national House of Representatives was quite a bit smaller than most state legislatures in the period. Since the new legislature was to have increased fiscal authority, especially the right to raise taxes, the Antifederalists feared that before long Congress would pass oppressive taxes that they would enforce by creating a standing national army. The preamble of the United States Constitution: Most of the world's democracies have based their constitutions on this document. This range of objections boiled down to a central opposition to the sweeping new powers of the proposed central government. George Mason, a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention who refused to support the Constitution, explained, the plan was "totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments." The rise of national power at the expense of state power was a common feature of Antifederalist opposition.
The most powerful objection raised by the Antifederalists, however, hinged on the lack of protection for individual liberties in the Constitution. Most of the state constitutions of the era had built on the Virginia model that included an explicit protection of individual rights that could not be intruded upon by the state. This was seen as a central safeguard of people's rights and was considered a major Revolutionary improvement over the unwritten protections of the British constitution. Why, then, had the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention not included a bill of rights in their proposed Constitution? Most Antifederalists thought that such protections were not granted because the Federalists represented a sinister movement to roll back the gains made for ordinary people during the Revolution. The Antifederalists and Federalists agreed on one thing: the future of the nation was at stake in the contest over the Constitution. Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of
government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened. Additionally, some Antifederalists argued that the protections of a bill of rights was especially important under the Constitution, which was an original compact with the people. State bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution were declared to be the supreme law of the land. Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights. Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed. They made a clear distinction between the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Using the language of social compact, Federalists asserted that when the people formed their state constitutions, they delegated to the state all rights and powers which were not explicitly reserved to the people. The state governments had broad authority to regulate even personal and private matters. But in the U.S. Constitution, the people or the states retained all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government. In short, everything not given was reserved. The U.S. government only had strictly delegated powers, limited to the general interests of the nation. Consequently, a bill of rights was not necessary and was perhaps a dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the new federal government could in no way endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. It was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive. Rights omitted could be considered as not retained. Finally, Federalists believed that bills of rights in history had been nothing more than paper protections, useless when they were most needed. In times of crisis they had been and would continue to be overridden. The people’s rights are best secured not by bills of rights, but by auxiliary precautions: the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government in which officeholders were responsible to the people, derive their power from the people, and would themselves suffer from the loss of basic rights. (F) Federalist Essays/Speeches Dangerous to List Rights(F) Publius: The Federalist 84, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788 Enumerated Powers Protects Rights(F) James Wilson Speech in the State House Yard, Philadelphia, 6 October 1787 Essential in an Original Contract(AF)
An Old Whig IV, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 27 October 1787 General Arguments(F) A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 22 November
1787 Good Government Protects Rights(F) A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 2 April 1788 Ineffective to List Rights(F)
A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 23 November 1787 Jury Trials Need Protection(AF)
Cincinnatus II: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal, 8 November 1787 Limits Government(F)
Uncus, Maryland Journal, 9 November 1788 Limiting Powers More Important than Bill of Rights(F) James Wilson Speech in the Pennsylvania Convention, 28 November 1787 Necessary to Check Government Power(AF) Timoleon, New York Journal, 1 November 1787, Extraordinary Necessary to Prevent Tyranny(F) Uncus, Maryland Journal, 9 November 1788 Necessary Statement of First Principles(AF) A True Friend, Richmond, 6 December 1787 Not Necessary to List Rights(F) James Wilson Speech in the Pennsylvania State House Yard, 6 October 1787 Not Necessary to List Natural Rights(F) Remarker, Boston Independent Chronicle, 27 December 1787 Only Needed in Monarchial Governments(F) Marcus I, Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal, 20 February 1788 Partial List in the Constitution is Incomplete(AF) Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican, 8 November 1787 Proposed/Recommended Bills of RightsRichard Henry Lee’s Proposed Amendments in Cogeress, 27 September 1787 Representation Protects Rights(F) Letter from Roger Sherman, New Haven, 8 December 1787 Supremacy Clause a Threat to Individual Rights(AF) The Impartial Examiner I, Virginia Independent Chronicle,
20 February 1788 Treaty Powers a Threat to Individual Rights(F) James Madison Speech in the Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788 What was the main anti federalist argument against ratifying the Constitution quizlet?People opposed to the ratification of the Constitution were called the Anti-Federalists. They were concerned that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.
What were the main arguments used by the AntiAnti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, while taking too much power away from state and local governments. Many felt that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen.
What were the arguments for and against ratifying the Constitution?Anti-Federalists argued for the value of limited central government, whereas Federalists maintained that natural rights to life, liberty, and property would be best protected under a strong central government.
What were the major arguments of the AntiFederalists believed that a stronger national government would improve relationships between states and help create, as the Constitution stated, a “more perfect union.” Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, worried that a federal government with more power would be prone to tyranny.
|
What was a major argument used by the anti federalists to oppose ratifying the Constitution
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 de.ketajaman Inc.
