After the defeat of Britain, The United States found itself in a state of confusion. They were without government rule and needed to create a system for the states to be able to work together. The Articles of Confederation were constructed but seen as unsuccessful; some felt a stronger federal government would be a better choice for long-term prosperity. The Constitution was written for a stronger national government, including a leader, military forces, and taxes. Americans on the other side of the argument were triggered and felt that more federal government would lead to an erosion of individual liberty. Since then, the core argument between the federalists and anti-federalists has been central to American political culture, because to this day, half of American’s value individual liberties and states rights while the other half see the benefits in a federal government that will work for its people to solve problems. The video clip gives a visual and light-hearted example of this dichotomy. The federalist provides examples of what a stronger government can do to better American society. At the same time, the anti-federalist warns that taking away power from the people and states will lose their freedoms. The anti-federalist warns that building a new strong government will defeat the purpose of breaking away from British rule; it would bring back a new oppressive government they worked hard to free themselves from. Federalists believed that this new form of government would never reach the levels of abusive power like Britain due to safeguards put into the Constitution. In the end, both sides agreed on adding the bill of rights to protect individual liberties from the government. To this day, the United States has split ideas on how much power the federal government should or should not have over the people and states. This fundamental issue has been in the middle of the debate, everything from the Civil War to Obama Care. It is an emotionally charged topic that continues to divide our country.
Questions:
- If ten more rights were to be added to the Constitution, would the political culture in America today support the ratification of them? Why?
- If Alexandra Hamilton, John Jay, and James Maddison were still alive today, would they think the safeguards they put into place to appease anti-federalists were adequate?
- What would America look like if no Constitution was ratified and it was still under the Articles of Confederation? Would it have failed or flourished?
- Why was freedom important to the anti-federalists?
- The Federalist paper states, “the people must give to the government some of their natural rights in order to provide it with power.”. Why do you believe the federalists were willing to give up some of their liberties to make a stronger government?
I enjoyed this assignment; coming up with five questions was a challenge I liked! I liked that I could choose the topic of American political culture I wanted to do. I enjoy projects more than just reading a book and answering questions. My degree is in Elementary Education, so this assignment was perfect for me. I think you should use it for future classes.
Really great questions, I can see why you chose the major you did. It is interesting to see that even back then America was so split.
Being British it is interesting learning about the opposite side of history. Being ruled by the crown has its benefits but mostly at that time drawbacks. I can understand both the federalist and anti-federalist arguments but I think that the federalists were right in this instance. It is not great to try and run a large country without a strong government with checks and balances.