The Anti-Federalists

The Anti-Federalists

Antifederalists were opponents of the Constitution at the American Constitutional Convention.  The most disagreement to the constitution came from small farmers and democratically inclined areas.   

A Revolutionary Experiment “In the city of Philadelphia and some of eastern countries the junto took the lead in the business agreed to vote for none but such as would solemnly promise to adopt the system in toto, without exercising their judgment. In many of the countries the people did not attend the elections, as they had not an opportunity of judging of the plan. Others did not consider themselves bound by the call of a set of men who assembled the name of the legislature of Pennsylvania; and some were prevented from voting by the violence of the party who were determined at all events to force down the measure.”

In regards the election process, it is understood that we all want a well-functioning government. We need representatives that will not defraud the registered voters under democracy. Of course, in order to have the opportunity of electing a good representative, we must exercise our voting rights. Through voting, we are making an effort for our voices to be heard in choosing the right representative. Of course, if no one votes, no person can expect for changes to occur.

My reaction to the topic is that the people who were against to the constitution “Antifederalists” believed in the importance of restraining government power. I think they were protected individual liberties during Constitution; it was the most powerful opposition. 

What I Saw in America

What I Saw in America, by G. K. Chesterton

Chesterton point out “I have never managed to lose my old conviction that travel narrows the mind. At least a man must make a double effort of moral humility and imaginative energy to prevent it from narrowing his mind. Indeed there is something touching and even tragic about the thought of the thoughtless tourist, who might have stayed at home loving Laplanders, embracing Chinamen, and clasping Patagonians to his heart in Hampstead or Surbiton, but for his blind and suicidal impulse to go and see what they looked like. This is not meant for nonsense; still less is it meant for the silliest sort of nonsense, which is cynicism. The human bond that he feels at home is not an illusion. On the contrary, it is rather an inner reality. Man is inside all men. In a real sense any man may be inside any men. But to travel is to leave the inside and draw dangerously near the outside. So long as he thought of men in the abstract, like naked toiling figures in some classic frieze, merely as those who labour and love their children and die, he was thinking the fundamental truth about them. By going to look at their unfamiliar manners and customs he is inviting them to disguise themselves in fantastic masks and costumes. Many modern internationalists talk as if men of different nationalities had only to meet and mix and understand each other. In reality that is the moment of supreme danger the moment when they meet. We might shiver, as at the old euphemism by which a meeting meant a duel.”

In light of this paragraph, it is understood that a person can be unique regardless to where the person goes. One may leave their native land to a foreign place and learn new things, but many maintain their way of life and who they are. There may be some people who face changes that are great such as personality and even how they do things. Not to mention, like in this country, many people are open minded, but there may be some who are reluctant to accepting differences, thus creating conflicts amongst each other.

I choose this quote because I identify myself with this paragraph, I learned from different culture, but I still preserve my identity as Dominican person who need to immigrate to find a better way of live. I adopt this nation as many immigrants. In the United States I am feeling the emotion to be independence. It is a place where people have to make effort in order to expect some gains in return. Some of the effort entails is working and studying hard. Chesterton point out “I have never managed to lose my old conviction that travel narrows the mind. Travel ought to combine amusement with instruction; but most travellers are so much amused that they refuse to be instructed. I do not blame them for being amused; it is perfectly natural to be amused at a Dutchman for being Dutch or a Chinaman for being Chinese.” I think it is not wrong when you face some change, it is great in order to grown up.   

On Liberty by John Winthrop

          On Liberty by John Winthrop (1588-1649)

John Winthrop was born to an established family in Suffolk Country, England. He was educated at Cambridge University. He was a governor of the Massachusetts. He was an passionately religious person.

Winthrop point out “For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.”

In accordance to this paragraph, it is good to know that we the people can enjoy and presence the liberty rendered in this country. Of course, to have too much of one thing is never good. In this case, too much liberty can be detrimental to the order amongst people. People in general can end up doing more harm than good if too much liberty is rendered. Coming back to the point, it’s good to have liberty so long that there's order maintaining control.

As natural people, I have the freedom to do wherever it is good or bad but I disagree with Winthrop when he point out “I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal.” It is not this Country because it is good to be free. I think, it is not out natural because not all people are corrupt. Only some people take advantage of this power because they have the freedom to do wherever they want to do with their life. So, some individuals are making wrong decisions. For example, some people are using a lot of drugs and drinks. Consequently, they are committing crime. Some people are doing very well by themselves legitimate in the eye of God and authority.           

Benjamin Rush opposition to slavery

  Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) he was born near Philadelphia. He played a dramatic role in the early history of this country. He graduated from the College of New Jersey in 1760. He was a vigorous opponent of slavery and capital punishment, an advocate of better education for boy, girls and free public schools.

  "But let the young Negroes be educated in the principles of virtue and religion- let them be taught to read and write- and afterwards instructed in some business, whereby they may be made to limit the time of their servitude, and to entitle them to all the privileges of free-born British subjects. At any rate let retribution be done to God and to society."

  

  Benjamin Rush is elaborating the fact that slave trade is wrong and it must be stopped in order to abolish slavery in this country. People should be treated as human beings and the Negros should be given the opportunity to become educate. That is the Negros should be given the chance to learn to read and write. According to Rush slave trade is detrimental to the moral and natural world. He mentioned before, this form of business is not right because people are making profits in exchange of the suffrage of others.

  My reaction to the topic is that what Benjamin Rush point out “Husbands have been forced to prostitute their wives, and mothers their daughters, to gratify the brutal lust of a masters. This all this practiced- Blush- ye impure and hardened monsters, while I repeat it- by man who call themselves Christians!” I agree with Rush that slavery was morally wrong.

  slaves were denied human rights and were treated like property solely because of their skin color. Everyone is entitled to be protected by the human rights under the constitution.

  

Maritza's questions

1-If you were a framer what changes would you make in the constitution? Yes or not? Why?

2-Should  Congress limit the capacity of the government to create new rights for minorities?

3-what are the advantages and disadvantages of America's constitution?

The Constitution

A Revolutionary Experiment: 1620-1800 begins this chapter “The Constitution” by giving an example of how the Constitution works.  The book points out that the Constitution not only guarantees rights but also distribute power. Not even the president can force Congress to act. It also creates political institutions, assigns or divides powers in government, and provides certain guarantees to citizens. The name for this division of power is “federalism.” This power was separated into three branches legislative, executive and judicial. The constitution establishes the legislative branch it describes that Congress make laws. The executive branch enforces the law that Congress passes. The judicial has the responsibility to decide if government laws follow the constitution.  According to United States for the Naturalization Test, “The constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

In this paragraph, it leads readers to believe that the United States Constitution was created to serve the purpose of protecting the civil rights of the citizens under democracy.  People can count on government not having absolute power over the people.  With this in mind, people can exercise their freedom to be themselves and to practice their religion as they please.  Not to mention, in terms of electing their representatives, under democracy, people can rest to sure that during elections, they have the chance to choose the candidate that’s going to represent them in the law making process.

As a reaction to the topic and a resident in this country, my beliefs are that I agree with the laws under the United States Constitution.  People; regardless to what position they have in society, have to abide by the rules implemented by the Constitution of this country.  Considering that I fall into we the people, I chose this topic because the laws implemented under the United States Constitution is created to serve us as a whole.

“We the People” is the first three words of the constitution. People who wrote the constitution wanted to limit the government’s powers. The separation of powers which requires each of the three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial.