Articles Of Confederation And The Constitution Rhetorical Analysis

A percentage of the opposition accepted that the focal government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others accepted that while the national government under the Articles was excessively powerless, the national government under the Constitution would be excessively solid. An alternate grievance of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution accommodated a brought together instead of elected type of government and that a really elected manifestation of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation. Yours Response for other student post:

In your discussion, there are valid points about the Article of Confederation that cripple the government and the states. The balance and supportive evidence allows an articulate flow of your paragraphs as I read along. In an agreement, the Article of Confederation left the government with minimal power and the states with more only provided the instability to those actions and affect the colonist of each state. Also, the uneasiness of the government’s control and the state’s managing within the states left other affairs in question, such as the foreign trade, debt from the previous war and treaties or taxation. However, those issues only formulated the urgency for additional balance among the government and states.

We as Americans can say that we are proud of what we have fought for and achieved. Years ago, oppression of self law and liberties constrained us from being the free men and women we are today. Though we see good in the change, there must be order to the new chaos we have witnessed. We fought as a Union to gain this freedom, yet we act as distant siblings traveling in their own direction. This is why we must formulate a new government, a government for the people, by the people.

There are countless Arguments both for and against the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Some of the main arguments of the Federalist include that a strong National government offered protection for the people’s rights, the government would benefit from a 3 branch system and a system of checks and balances needed to be created. Some of the main ideas of the anti-federalist were that the National Government would have too much power, a Bill of Right needed to be added, the constitutions effect of the government would be too tyrannical, and that the federal court system would be too powerful. Considered the Father of the Constitution, James Madison was detrimental in the creation In the US Constitution.

Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..

The Federalists wanted a representative democracy under which there would be a strong central government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had little power other than to declare war, borrow and coin money, and regulate trade with Native Americans, along with a few others; it lacked the authority to regulate commerce among states, levy taxes, create a standing army, or prevent discrimination among states (Lowi) . The issues caused by the lack of authority of the central government quickly called for the need for change. This sculpted the Federalists’ objective to create a strong national government which had concrete governmental power strong enough to create unity among the states. One main focus for the Federalists

Good evening delegates. We are here today to talk to you about the strengths of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation are our first attempt at a new government. We are allowed to declare war, peace, and sign treaties with foreign nations, which we were not granted to do under British rule. The Articles of Confederation also enable us to have a say in political matters.

The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

After the American Revolution the Articles of Confederation was established as the document for our society, it created a loose national government and had to be reevaluated. The Constitution was an imperfect document, but it created a just government because it is a living document with an amendment process to improve the government. Over time our society has evolved ad developed greatly, through this the Constitution has remained relevant and true. The Articles of Confederation no doubt was faulty and needed attention.

Many people would say that the Articles of Confederation is a disaster. I agree that the Articles of Confederation is a failure and needs to be revised or replaced completely. These 13 colonies are more like 13 different countries. Every state has their own currency. The Government currently has very limited power over the states.

Who to divide government powers, individual rights, and if the government or the state got more powers. The Federalist believe the constitution was necessary to protect the safety and independence of the people. They wanted to give more power to the national government and take away power from the state, they also wanted to divide

The Federalist Papers, essays written on behalf of the ratification of the Constitution, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, are testaments to our Founding Fathers’ steadfast belief in a strong, national government; unified against the ills of those wishing to impose their tyrannical beliefs on the nascent country. More specifically, these eighty-five pieces of political brilliance truly shed light on just how divided our country was, with the Federalists believing in a national government, administered by a strong, core Federal system, and the Anti-Federalists, those who were opposed to the federal system, and alternately believed in a strong state system, with no strong, core federal government uniting the states. These Federalist papers were in essence a plea, then, to the people of the

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

They also believed that, the large republic politics would act like a filter and it will be able to select skilled and talented leaders. They were confident that the federal system would act like a firewall and it will help to isolate factions within the individual states and preventing from spreading their negative agendas to other states (p. 149). The federalists supported a strong central government and opposed Bill of Rights unnecessary and harmful to liberty. The Antifederalists opposed strong central government and believed Bill of Rights are necessary to protect liberty. The Federalists didn’t like militia and preferred Federal standing army

Following the Revolutionary War, America had just gained independance from Great Britain and needed to form a new government. The Articles of Confederation were established as an attempt to create a government that was unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. When in the process of repairing those weaknesses, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists formed. The Articles of Confederation were very weak as well as useless to America and because of this, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists could not agree on a new type of government.