User:Mwinterspstcc/sandbox

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;[4] and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.

Gilbertson, Nils. “Return of the Skeptics: The Growing Role of the Anti-Federalists in Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence.” The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 16, no. 1, Georgetown University Law Center, 2018, p. 255.

ISSN: 1536-5077

“The Anti-Federalists were ‘localists who were unceasingly skeptical of centralized power, and "lacked both the faith and the vision to extend their principles nation-wide.’ "

Phase Three

John Craig Hammond. “"We Are to Be Reduced to the Level of Slaves": Planters, Taxes, Aristocrats, and Massachusetts Antifederalists, 1787-1788.” Historical Journal of Massachusetts, vol. 31, no. 2, Institute of Massachusetts Studies, 2003, p. 172.

In this article, the Antifederalists' view of slavery is revealed. Unlike the Federalists, the Antifederalists did not believe that the “three-fifths” rule for slaves was equal. Although slavery was normal back in those times, the article explained that one major reason that the Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution because it did not abolish slavery. The Antifederalists did not want to unite with the southern states that still allowed and/or encouraged slavery.

Mason, Matthew. “Slavery and the Founding.” History Compass, History Compass 4 (2006): 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2006.00345.x, vol. 4, no. 5, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006, pp. 943–55, doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2006.00345.x.

The topic of slavery was a major and heated debate when it came to the ratification of the Constitution. However, even though it was a major issue, both the Federalists and the Antifederalists are guilty of using slavery as a tool to gain political power. Whether they were opposed to slavery or in favor, at times, both sides treated slavery as a secondary issue in which they would use to their advantage to press their ideas on primary issues.

Phase Four

Paragraph 1: "Samuel Thompson of Maine gave voice to these complaints at the convention meeting in Boston to ratify the Constitution. "If the southern states would not give up the right of slavery, then we should not join with them," declared Thompson. Continuing, he insisted that the Constitution was "all a contrivance," with "Washington at the head." Thompson, like other Antifederalists, was convinced that "our delegates" were "overpowered by Washington and others" at the Philadelphia Convention that framed the Constitution. A week earlier, Thompson stated one of his main quarrels with the Constitution. The three-fifths "rule is unequal." Because of it, "Congress will have no impost or excise, but lay the whole tax on polls."'

Fact summary 1: The article expands on one of the reasons that the Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution which was that the rule of three fifths was not fair.

Paragraph 2: "During the ratification debates, “slavery was a disturbing but more or less marginal issue, discussion of which was usually tailored to the primary purpose of promoting or discouraging ratification.”... As Henrickson's contribution highlights, only a close consideration of the major intersections of slavery with the Constitution, and how Federalists and Antifederalists framed and fought the political battles over them, is calculated to shed light on the role slavery played the Founding. To my mind, the evidence suggests that slavery was for most players a secondary issue that they could use to great advantage in pressing their respective points of view regarding the primary bones of contention."

Fact summary 2: Both the Antifederalists and the Federalists used slavery as a way to promote or discourage the ratification of the Constitution.

Practice Edit:

"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; 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. Another complaint about the Constitution from the Antifederalists, was that the "three-fifths" rule was unequal . The Antifederalists believed that the act of slavery was wrong and that the Constitution should not support or tolerate slavery. By opposing slavery and the states that allowed it, the Antifederalists publically discouraged the ratification of the Constitution.