User:Gjmcdonaldpstcc


 * Lives in Maryville, Tennessee.
 * Student currently attending Pellissippi State Community College.
 * 'Good Guy'
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

FEDERALISTS

Fact: The Federalists called for a strong national government that promoted economic growth and fostered friendly relationships with Great Britain in opposition to Revolutionary France.

Quote: "Thus, while the Anti-Federalists refused to compromise their states' sovereignty and insisted that the Articles of Confederation need only be amended but not abolished, the Federalists were convinced of the need to grant greater powers to a new central government and to empower an executive to solve the perceived failures of government that had occurred between 1776 and 1789." (Lim 7).

MLA Citation: Lim, Elvin T. The Lovers' Quarrel : The Two Foundings and American Political Development. Oxford University Press, 2014.

ISBN: 9780199812196

PHASE FOUR

Zug, Charles U. “The Republican Theories of Rousseau and the American Anti-Federalists.” The Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 66, no. 2, Wiley                        Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, 2020, pp. 181–99, doi:10.1111/ajph.12677.

The following scholarly article written by Charles U. Zug of Wiley Online Library discusses Jean Jacques Rosseau’s view of American Anti-Federalists. This source attempts to explain the reasoning for people having freedom without government interference in an ideal society. This will eventually lead to why certain groups support certain political parties in America.

FACT 1 PARAGRAPH: Members cannot revolt, as the Anti-Federalists would assert, if their reserved rights are being violated, but rather, only if their individual rights as derived from their collective rights are violated. Thus, if the general will requires, say, property confiscations or sacrifices of life in war, members of the community cannot claim that such sacrifices are violations of their reserved rights and therefore justifications for revolution: the liberty such members derive from the collective demands that they submit to the general will.

SENTENCE 1 SUMMARY:

Lim, Elvin T. “The Anti-Federalist Strand in Progressive Politics and Political Thought.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 1, Sage Publications, 2013, pp. 32–45,        doi:10.1177/1065912911430668.

The following scholarly article by Utah University explains the Anti-Federalist role in politics. Citizens have found themselves caregivers of society, not the government. In the article, you can find how Anti-Federalists viewed Federalists and how the concept of a strong central government could affect ordinary, everyday citizens.

FACT 2 PARAGRAPH: The second reason why the Anti-Federalists and Progressives opposed complex government was borne of their political-epistemological belief that the common good existed as a monolithic, preinstitutional reality and their corresponding skepticism that an invisible institutional hand could coalesce a multitude of competing interests toward the pursuit of the common good (McWilliams 1990, 22). Because the Anti-Federalists envisioned a simple and homogenous republic, they simply assumed that there would be a corresponding homogeneity of views within the polity, and hence it made sense to speak of a monolithic common good that existed prior to the coalescing influence of institutions.

SENTENCE 2 SUMMARY:

> The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that saw in the proposed government a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain;[3] and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than federal government (and in The Federalist Papers, James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation.

> In many states the opposition to the Constitution was strong (although Delaware, Georgia, and New Jersey ratified quickly with little controversy), and in two states—North Carolina and Rhode Island—it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adherence. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt.[3] In Rhode Island, resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.[5]