Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of 2.03 assesment
By: Gabi Williamson
Where do I stand?
I am strongly sided with the Federalists. A strong central government has been very beneficial to our country, as it has been proven. They wanted to see a change, whereas the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the monarchy government. The federalists wanted to see a change for the better in our country.
After my research on both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the Anti-Federalists way of governing would have obviously led us into corruption. The Federalists had the most reasonable points. “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
The Anti-Federalists wanted to keep our government as is, which would mean that we would basically be a monarchy. Doing this would cause hostility toward the government. The Federalists believed in a strong central government. They wanted the Constitution ratified immediately, just the way it was. They wanted some of the powers removed from the states and given to the central government. Also, the Federalists supported the division of the government into three branches.
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist
Federalists and Anti-Federalists had completely different views as to how the country should be governed. They each had ideas that would help the country, and make it better. Federalists wanted a strong, central federal government, a central bank, and an army. They were in the favor of the people and not just who ruled. In the Federalist paper no. 39 it states: "It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppression by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." The federalists also wanted to separate the powers of the government into different branches so that the government could be kept under control. It is stated in the Federalist paper no. 59: "It is evident that each department should have a will of it's own and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others... but great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist enroachment of others."
Anti-federalists were scared that a strong central government would take away their freedom and their rights. They didn't see a need for an army or a bank, and they did NOT want to end slavery. They wanted a monarchy government, where the citizens had no say in the direction that the country went. This, obviously isn't the way that our country was intended to go. Also, anti-federalists supported State governments. Sticking with this kind of government would mean a higher possibility for the government to fall apart, and a weaker unity. In the Anti-federalist paper "Brutus I" it states: “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ This proves that they didn't want a strong central government. Also, it is stated: “It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.“ It directly states that they believe that a milita will bring us "destruction of liberty."