I had a lot of fun with the debate. I wish we had had a longer period of time to work with. I feel like then we would have been able to have had more well-rounded argument. I guess some questions i had were, did the anti-federalists have a solution to the economic and trade problems that were going on. And also, did the states that weren't as prosperous under the Articles of Confederation, like New Jersey Pro-constitution, because i just remember the text talking about individuals. Finally, i think jason talked about if we were to have a stronger federal government, something about how foreign imports and exports would become less popular, and i was wondering if he could elaborate, or whoever said it
Rachel wanted to to tell you guys that we're just posting about the debate and not about The Constitution. And also, if you want to post and haven't used this site before, you have to register
-Cam
Also, Date Night opens friday which looks mad funny and Iron Man 2 comes out 5/7, mark the date!!!!!!!!! _________________ Cam Bauchner
I feel as though the debate may have gone better had we been given the chance to write a formal rebuttal and used that format instead of open debate. I was also wondering about an economic solution for the Anti-Federalist side in our debate (it would of been nice to have one). On page 27 Melancton Smith talks about the economic issue only worsening when he says "I will only remark that the national expenses will be increased; if not doubled, it will approach it very nearly, I might, without incurring the imputation of illiberality or extravagance, say that the expense will be multiplied tenfold" But his response is purely rhetoric as are the majority of anti federalist arguments and it more or less jumps around the issue rather than addressing it. It seemed as the the anti federalists' fear of a large centralized government formed the core of their beliefs while they irrationally dabbled in other issues. Ultimately this made our debate hard for we didn't have many facts or rational arguments to support our cause.
What I was going to say was that, if we had more time and could have been able to do a more formal rebuttal (like Karl mentioned), or maybe had more chances to discuss as groups after some of the debating, I feel like it might have been a slightly better debate.
Also, I wished we could have done another reading about the topic or something. I don't know, I thought the reading was kind of repetitive and didn't have a whole lot of factual information that could have been useful for the anti-federalist side. (And sort of the federalist side too..). I liked the reading, but I think maybe if we had had one more night before the debate with something else for reading, the debate could have been a little more productive.
Last edited by mlong on Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:54 am; edited 2 times in total
Hey guys,
Cam, just to take a stab at one of your questions, it did not seem (from the reading and textbooks) that the anti-federalists did have many solutions to the tax problems and increasing debt. Of course this was problematic as we were debating because few solutions were posed about how we hoped to become more prosperous. While the anti-federalists did not seem to pose many solutions to this problem, I think the anti-federalists did think that centralizing government would pose problems to the econmic well being (or lack thereof) of individual states…. I am curious to know how states’ economic wellbeing or growth changed after the constitutional convention and the centralization of government… Does any one know? I think it is safe to assume that the United States as a nation began to do better financially, right? But I wonder on a state by state level in comparison to previously…
I had a question about size… Were anti-federalists worried that the size of the United States (the amount of states) would make it difficult to centralize the government because of states on the outside and the sheer amount of groups with different agendas? I wonder how size plays into all this… On page 23, the reading states, “…If it were possible to consolidate states and preserve the features of a free government, still it is evident that the middle states, the parts of the union about the seat of government, would enjoy great advantages, while the remote states would experience the many inconveniences of remote provinces.” This speaks to a concern about states that would not be cared for…
I am also interested in understanding the connection between autonomy and unity and the struggle to maintain a balance… I wonder how states were able to govern themselves and have power while having pride and connection with their nation…
Lastly on a personal note, it was a good challenge to be an anti-federalist because I so disagree with the ideas!
Jesse olivia
In response to Jesse's question,
"Were anti-federalists worried that the size of the United States (the amount of states) would make it difficult to centralize the government because of states on the outside and the sheer amount of groups with different agendas?"
Yes, this issue was addressed by Richard Henry Lee (p23), "The parts of the union about the seat of government, would enjoy great advantages, while the remote states would experience the many inconveniences of remote provinces." With plans for westward expansion foreshadowed by British "sea to sea" charters (p11), Lee's fears on behalf of the westward territories are justified, as a new territory would have little power over itself in a federal government. (Later on, this would become an issue that lead to the Missouri Compromise) Furthermore, Lee saw that the supreme law of the Constitution would make it so that no delegation would be needed to impose or void certain laws in a state. The Constitution's law could therefore be detrimental to the liberty of a state as Jefferson wrote,
"I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." (p28)
For one document written by only a party of men to impose itself on a nation of millions living in vastly different conditions is absurd.
Although it may seem to only be rhetoric, it has its justifications and grounds in fact.
lots of anti federalist points to be made although they were scarcely mentioned in the reading..
although the social discrepancies between parties tend to monopolize the political spectrum these days, the debate over federal centralization is still a key one. for instance in this last presidential election, social issues like civil union and abortion took major prominence in debates rather than the discussion over whether or not these issues should be federally regulated or state regulated (or receive no government regulation at all).
to address the question of antifederalist economic policy- catch phrases like
- competition drives down the price
- the freer the market, the freer the people
these certainly apply to state competition in the 1780's although they're slightly more recent economic concepts. in many ways it doesn't make sense to ally yourself with a certain country over another in trade deals and treaties, when lets say it may make more sense for virginia to trade more exclusively with holland because they produce more cotton and it may make more sense for ma to have special trading privileges with Britain because they produce more lumber (arbitrary examples). For instance if company b produces toothpaste and they supply drugstores all across america, and company b produces nails and they supply to hardware companies all across america, then when company a and b merge things get really complicated.
also keep in mind that the notion of judicial review had yet to be established pre Marbury v Madison, and at the time both houses were self selected not directly elected. that being said, the notion of checks and balances was far less pronounced than it is today. the scare of a return to monarchy was for this reason far more legitimate than it may seem today post fact. And to answer jessies q, the problem of size most definitely did come into play, as some notable patriots viewed the only viable solution to singular governance of such a large land mass to be dictatorship or monarchy. to have established a federal government that has represented such varying interests as well as it has for as long as it has was definitely an improbable course. this is why the convention drew so much reluctancy and skepticism despite the dire circumstances.
it would be misleading to say that history leans towards any one direction. i would say it was the strong pull in both directions that shaped the crafting of the constitution and ultimately the political system we have today. no side is right as far as history can judge, it's the back and forth that supplies us with the most progressive and enduring governance in the world.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
