| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "ANTI FEDERALISTS": |
|
|
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, 2002.
This paper discusses the issues that divided the leadership of the early United States of America into the Federalists and the Anti-federalists camps and the resulting structure of the United States of America.
865 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Anti-federalist leaders -- Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Eldridge Gerry, and Patrick Henry -- opposed the ratification of the Constitution because they believed the states should be the primary protectors of individual rights. The author relates that the Federalists leaders -- John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton -- supported a strong government that would reign in selfish human instincts and channel them toward the pursuit of the common good. The paper reports that the Federalists won the debate: Therefore, the Constitution provides a strong federal government; but the Anti-federalists were important because they prevented the federal government from gaining too many powers and saw to inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
From the Paper
"The Federalists began seeking to reform the Articles in 1783. In 1786, the financial hardships that the states were facing became apparent when Daniel Shays led a rebellion against the courts. This scene was an example of how the people could take matters into their own hands and it instilled fear in the hearts of the ?propertied class? (170). This fear leads to the Federalist belief that a stronger federal government was most certainly needed. (170) In all fairness, the Federalists were looking for a type of government that was not as oppressive as the type of rule they had in British, but a little stronger than the current weak American government."
| |
|
Federalists and Anti-Federalists, 2004.
A discussion of the different visions of the Federalists and Anti-federalists for the young country before the American Civil War.
2,101 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the different views of Federalists and Anti-Federalists, or Jeffersonian Republicans, and how the two parties emerged. It analyzes how their opposing political agendas led to such event, such as the War of 1812, industrialization, and the development of the Monroe Doctrine. It also examines how the political visions of the parties were extremely different and how each had accomplishments that changed the country forever.
From the Paper
"The Federalists felt that there should be a loose interpretation of the Constitution, and they saw a need for a unified nation. Federalist leaders were concerned with a loss of social and political power due to excessive liberties for the people. They scorned democracy and did not think that states should have too many powers. The reason for this is that America would be many separate states, not one unified nation. Also, if people were given too many liberties, they could be abused and it could end in chaos. In the case of Shay?s Rebellion, it was looked at as a threat to social and political order. Because of the poor economy, farmers and merchants were using credit. However, when merchants were in need of cash, they called for the repayment of the money owed. Farmers were brought to court, and this brought outrage among them. "
| |
|
Anti-Federalists, 2002.
A look at the arguments of the anti-federalists at the signing of the Constitution.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This three-page undergraduate paper discusses the arguments presented by the anti-federalists when the constitution was being ratified by member states. While some major states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania were highly in favor of the constitution, some other states were uncertain and they debated against it. These people were later called the anti-federalists and the articles they published against the constitution appeared in newspapers and are known as the 'Anti-Federalist Papers'.
| |
|
Anti-Federalists and the Constitutional Debate, 2006.
A review of the debate between the Federalists and Anti-federalists of the constitutional congress.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper summarizes the debate between the Federalists and Anti-federalists of the constitutional congress. It suggests some ongoing problems in American public life which demonstrate the main issues which drove that debate, far from being resolved during the constitution's ratification, continue to resonate in current events. This paper discusses the Ratification Debate and the major issues which drove the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists: Distribution of power, protection of rights, limitations of institutions and the ongoing Relevance.
From the Paper
"In the last few days of September in 1787, the Confederation Congress met to debate and construct a new Constitution of the United States. The document they wrote and sent for ratification to the thirteen states that made up the newly-formed country was intended to replace the Articles of Confederation that had ordered the nation since its inception. The nation was reaching a crisis point, as the experiment had been going poorly. Surprisingly, perhaps, the problem was not one of the many possible economic problems that new nations are likely to experience when reconstructing after a long and difficult war. As Gordon Wood (1969) argues, the general economy was running well and people felt comfortable and even prosperous (p. 395). Rather, the concerns that brought the nation's leading politicians together were primarily political. "
| |
|
The Anti-federalist Movement, 2008.
An analysis of the article "Anti-federalists, the First Congress and the First Parties" by John Aldrich and Ruth Grant.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the historical importance and legacy of the Anti-federalist movement, based on a reading of the article "Anti-federalists, the First Congress and the First Parties" by John Aldrich and Ruth Grant.
The paper discusses the movement's role in the formation of the party system, which today endows the United States with its leadership, its philosophy and its cultural identity. The paper holds that Aldrich and Grant's article succeeds in reinforcing the impression of the long-defunct party as an important player in the development of many institutions which are, for their contributions, relevant today. The paper concludes that the political philosophy framework, which the authors utilize, is particularly compelling, suggesting an organic process by which ideals begat parties and parties began applied institutions.
From the Paper
"The authors take a theoretical approach which is at once rational and psychological. Certainly, the long-term relevance of a party with such a brief lifespan as that which eclipsed over the anti-federalist party would be bore out as a product of its practical institutional thinking. That it would disappear as an official party suggests less that it had conceded to its non-existence in light its failure to lead the First Congress in its conceptualization of the Constitution and more that its structural proclivity for compromise would ultimately make it susceptible to a diminished party distinction. This in turn, would help to create the rational formulation of the Republic Party. The process is explained by the authors as a matter of natural political continuity, wherein "the Anti-federalists' votes combined with the antiadministration Federalists to create a bloc, led by Madison, with sufficient strength to challenge and, at times, temporarily block enactment of Hamilton's plan." (301) This bloc, the authors argue, would be the catalyst in forming the Republican Party. Its proclivity toward party-line voting in accordance with an ideologically-based political power-group would presage the modern party system with a distinctly philosophical modus operandi. This is the reality which would follow naturally the ideological assumption that the Anti-federalists, and thereafter the Republican Party, would serve public office "on behalf of the people as a whole." (298) Here, we are also given cause to suggest a psychological theoretical approach to party development and the shaping of the Constitution, with the philosophical focus of Anti-federalist efforts taking on a pointedly humanist approach shaping the nation."
| |
|
The Federalist Argument and the Bill of Rights, 2004.
Examines how the Anti-federalist versus Federalist argument is reflected in American political history documentation.
1,873 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Anti-federalist versus Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. The length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the Constitution was approved by the first congressional convention, to June of 1788, when Virginia was the first to ratify the Constitution of the United States. This paper shows, however, that the concepts, ideas, and standards that were set forth by both the Anti-federalists and the Federalists, as well as other, more moderate politicians, are expressed throughout the foundational documentation of the United States. The paper shows how, most notably, the Bill of Rights is a reflective example of the compromises and victories of both sides, but this can be seen elsewhere in other foundational documentation as well.
From the Paper
"Federalists, on the contrary, believed that a weak central government would be ineffective and useless in times of national need and could not stand independently to make decisions about national needs if constantly in conflict with state and local governmental entities. Yet, most importantly the anti-federalists were asking for careful examinations of not only motive but fact and future when decisions so serious were to be made."
| |
|
Hamilton vs. Jefferson, 2002.
Examines the conflicts between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists in post-Independence America.
1,644 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The conflict that took shape in the 1790s between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had a large impact on American history. The paper shows that the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, represented the urban business interests of the seaports. The Anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, rallied for the rural and southern interests. The paper shows that while supporters of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both desired economic growth and development, they differed on how best to accomplish that goal. These alternative policies occurred at a critical time in American history, and the policies that ensued between these two important architects govern the country, even today.
From the Paper
"Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist, who believed that a strong federal government was vital to the survival of the new America?s, a view with which Washington agreed with. Hamilton and the Federalists feared that having a weak government would allow for conflicts between the new states, and invasion by foreign forces. Hamilton believed that the wealthy elites were best suited to govern the people, and that commonplace man as was easily led off track (Elkins, 1993)."
| |
|
American Political Parties, 2002.
Discusses the role of the anti-federalists and the constitution in the development of political parties.
976 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Even before the adoption of the Constitution, political parties were beginning to form in American. The paper shows that those who favored the Constitution were called Federalists and were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Another group, led by Thomas Jefferson, opposed the adoption of the Constitution and was known as Anti-federalists. The paper describes how the Anti-federalists broke up after the Constitution was ratified, but they set the stage for the development of other political parties, resulting in the two party system that we have today.
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction
II. The Development of Political Parties
III. The Constitution and Political Parties
IV. The Changing Ideology of Political Parties
V. Conclusion
From the Paper
"Political parties realign their ideologies to meet changing times and sentiments. For example, the Antifederalists and their successors favored an agrarian economy and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. But, once Jefferson became President, he had to change his philosophy because the Louisiana Purchase could only be justified by a broad interpretation of the Constitution. He also saw that the future of the country was tied to manufacturing and trade, so he dropped his opposition to these activities. Today, Democrats, who started out as states rights advocates and who preferred limited federal power now generally favor bigger government, federal involvement, and social intervention."
| |
|
Federalists And Antifederalists, 2002.
Contrasts the views and actions of the two political groups.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 7 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Contrasts the views and actions of the two political groups. Their ideas of what the powers of the federal government should be. Federalist believers James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Madison's concept of a system of checks and balances. Anti-Federalist mistrust of republican form of government & a powerful central government.
From the Paper
"FEDERALISTS AND ANTIFEDERALISTS
In the early days of this nation, two sides attempted to put their ideas into action. Federalism is, more or less, a sharing of powers- with certain powers delegated to a central government, and those not so delegated, belong to the states that make up the federation.
Given that there are various types of Federalism, they should be defined. At the time the country was constitutionally organized, many people believed in Dual Federalism. ?Dual Federalism originated in what may be called ?the Rural Republic? immediately after the Constitution was adopted. This form ?enumerated powers, sovereign and equal spheres? (Walker, 1995, p. 1). It was the beginning of a new government. At this early time, the federal government was limited. America had a basically rural ..."
| |
|
American Politics, 2004.
A discussion on the federalists and anti-federalists.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the philosophical divide that separated the federalists and anti-federalists. The paper discusses to what extent the powers of the central government must be limited.
From the Paper
"The merits of the new American Constitution were presented and defended by Publius in "The Federalist Papers" written during Hampsher-Monk. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay alternatively assumed the role of Publius and together rebutted criticisms made of the Constitution by other American patriots. The men who opposed the Constitution's unconditional ratification became ..."
| |
|
The Federalists, 2006.
A look at the argument that the policies advocated by the Federalists were based on deficit spending.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents the argument that the policies advocated by the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were based on deficit spending as a means of creating a strong, centralized economy and government in the United States that holds firm to the present time.
From the Paper
"The Federalist Party was founded in with the goal in mind of forging a secure federal government and encouraging the states to adopt the Constitution. The Federalists gained prominence from the leadership of Alexander Hamilton the ...."
| |
|
Puritans and Federalists, 1991.
A comparison of the themes, ideas, methods and goals of literature of two early American groups.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 3 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This study will compare the themes, ideas, and methods of the Puritans and the Federalists, including consideration of the main purposes of each in setting down their thoughts on paper.
The fundamental and most obvious difference between the two approaches to literature of these groups is that the Puritans were religiously oriented and the Federalists were politically oriented.
As we read in Miller and Johnson, "The tenets of Puritan faith obstructed any clear formulation of general aesthetic theory. Puritans saw images of divine things in the world about them, and drew analogies between the beautiful objects and the perfect archetype which they conceived as existing in the mind of God . . . The emphasis is theological" (64).
The Federalists, on the other hand, emphasized the..."
| |
|
The U.S. Constitution, 1993.
Discusses intentions of Federalists and Anti-Federalist in the formation of the U.S. constitution, including a review of portions of the "Federalist Papers".
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The U.S. Constitution was constructed as a series of compromises between the two major factions involved in its writing, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The framers of the Constitution feared the potential "mischiefs" of faction and designed a governmental system that would balance competing interests and prevent the ascension of any one faction. A given faction might gain control of one of the branches of government or one level of government, but this would not enable that faction to control the entire system or to create a tyranny over other factions. The Constitution embodied a series of checks and balances to prevent one faction from gaining ascendancy over others.
The overriding intent of the Framers was balance, to balance the rights of different groups, to balance the powers of the ..."
| |
|
The Federalist Papers, 2004.
Examines the importance of these documents to American political and social ideology.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Federalist Papers provided the blueprint for what was later to become the American Constitution and provided guidelines and step by step directions about the setting up of a nation. This paper presents a detailed examination of the Federalist Papers. The writer explores the papers and discusses how they contributed to the nation?s growth. In addition, the writer explores the anti-federalist papers and discusses their place in the growth of the nation. The paper also touches on the importance of the papers in modern American.
From the Paper
"The Federalist Papers went on to gain the support the authors were looking for regarding the proposed constitution. At first glance it may appear that the papers had served their purpose and were no longer needed today, but that is not the case. The Federalist Papers still have a significant impact on the nation currently for several reasons. Courtrooms around the nation are packed with cases in which the judges and juries are charged with determining whether or not the constitutional rights of the defendants have been obeyed. In addition there are political situations nationwide every day that must adhere to or go against the constitution."
| |
|
Victorian Philosophical Anti-Rationalism, 2005.
A look at the anti-practical, anti-utilitarian philosophy of Matthew Arnold, John Henry Newman, and Walter Pater.
1,237 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the writings and critiques of anti-utilitarian and anti-practical philosophers Arnold, Newman, and Pater. The paper explains, compares, and analyzes each philosopher's arguments against the pragmatism and utilitarianism of the Victorian age and explains why Matthew Arnold's critique of utilitarianism was the most scathing of all.
From the Paper
"The Victorian era in England gave birth to Jeremy Bentham?s utilitarian philosophy of social governance, to the scientific philosophy of Darwinism, and to the application of scientific principles to social philosophy in the form of Social Darwinism. Perhaps this scientific and methodical era, an era that oversaw the full flowering of the Industrial Revolution?s stress upon machinery into the transformation into the human body and mind as a machine-like worker drone, inevitably spawned a kind of counter-revolutionary philosophy and ethos for the age?namely the idea and ideals that cohered and evolved over the course of the Oxford Movement, the Pre-Raphaelite and Aesthetic movement, and finally coalesced into the austere vision of the poet and philosopher Matthew Arnold."
|
|
|
