Apush Dahl Summary

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights which was written by James Madison. He wrote The Bill Of Rights in response of calls from several states for greater constitutional protection of individual liberties. The people who signed the declaration made a promise to protect the people from the government. The colonist wanted to keep their rights because they had a fear of a tyrannical government. People believed and were taught that The Bill Of Rights came from the desire to protect the liberties won in the American Revolution. Evidence shows that that’s not really the case, there was some desire to protect the rights but mainly it was because of the American fear of a new government.

But, for now you have to look at the people that made the Articles and really how much power they should have given themselves. You do have to give a little leeway understanding that the Americans did not want an overpowering force, but really they could have given themselves a little more of a power shift. The Articles had given the states too much power and the Federal too little. This caused the states to break up into their own little countries that only cared about themselves. Really they were the States of America. In Document G, Shay’s Rebellion is brought into frame. The causes of this ultimately were from the states taxing their farmers, who were already in debt. The Debt from the Revolution brought on to the Government found it’s way towards the farmers. Along with that in Document A and H it is brought to light that 13 of the 13 states had to agree on the same thing for that to be ratified. This is one, not logical, and two, made it very hard for things to pass. If only a legislature was strong enough pass it’s own laws that were brought on to the

The United States of America established itself as a nation that advocated a political system subjected to the construct of democracy. This system was created to represent its citizens so that they may not grow weary in a tyrant monarchy, such as that of the British before the American Revolution [1]. The forefathers gathered to establish a constitution that respected the rights of its citizens and debated with much tension to how authority would be exercised in such a representative government. History has shared an active evolution to the structure of government within the United States , yet America today is actively still subjected to the famous political party establishment that was made in the years of 1783-1815. The political party commonly known were the Federalist and the Democratic Republicans – two very different ideal groups that helped change America.

According to Document 2, the Constitution was not secure enough. The Constitution did not have restrictions put in place in order to prevent a political office from ruling for life. The possibilities of the U.S. government transforming into a monarchy were too high, making it ideal to not ratify the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution posed a threat to those less wealthy. Document 5 expressed the concerns of the people, stating, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men … make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill”. In other words, the Constitution, written by educated, rich men, would grant more power to those already in a high position. To add to this, the anti-Federalists stated that Constitution was not secure enough to uphold citizens’ rights. The Constitution would be responsible for the endangerments of human rights such as trial by jury and liberty of the press. The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they thought it was an unfitting solution, which would lead the U.S. down the same path of injustice as Great Britain

There are a lot of things that Federalists and Democratic Republicans have in common so out of all of them these are some that I found on page 292, according to page 292 on the bottom it states that the Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist. The Federalists where ruled by the wealthy class. They had a strong federal government, they were allies with Britain, they protected tariffs. On the other hand there is the Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republicans were ruled by the people not just high class or low class like the Federalist but anyone. They had a strong state government, they were allies with the French. They had free trade

There are many conflicts in the early years of the American politics. There are two famous political parties during the early years of American Independence, and their ideologies were completely opposite. Thomas Jefferson was the third American President from 1801-1809. Alexander Hamilton was the founder of Federalist party and President Washington elected him as a first secretary of the treasurer. Jefferson's democratic-republican party views are always contradictory to the Federalist party founded by Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson believes in small federal government and more powers to individual states, his policies are around people and they should rule the government. Jefferson always follows strict constitutional rules. Jefferson always believed the country economy will improve through the agriculture. Hamilton views are very contrasted to Jefferson's view. Hamilton believes in strong federal government and weak state governments. He also wants to favor rich people and insist on rich should rule the country and he has a loose interpretation of the constitution. Hamilton dreams towards country economy should

The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.”

In 1787 many important people, like Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock, had different views and beliefs on ratifying the Constitution. This lead to two groups forming the federalists and the anti federalists. The federalist believed that the Constitution should be ratified for the sake of a strong government, while the anti federalist believed that the Constitution should not be ratified because of the lack of individual rights. Specifically, the antifederalists point of view was more reasonable towards the public due to the fact the anti federalists wanted power within each state and not the central government.

The Democratic-Republicans followed a strict interpretation of the constitution, where Federalists believed that the document was up for interpretation, and followed a loose construction. The Federalists believed that there should be a strong central government and that elected officials should not be directly influenced by the people. Essentially, they believed that the people would make poor decisions, if left to their own devices. They represented the elite and well off of society. The Democratic-Republicans thought that there should be a small central government, meaning that the power stayed with the states. They thought that the general population should have direct influence on the government and represented the common person of the

In my personal opinion, the moral dilemma that Jefferson faced resided in political reality. Jefferson had always advocated a very strict platform of Republican values up until this point. This position had been seen early on in his disagreements with Alexander Hamilton in President Washington's cabinet. In the election of 1800, Jefferson was able to articulate a new type of government that was filled with Republicanism. Jefferson took office and acted as if he was the epitome of Republican values. Republicans believed that the role of government needed to decrease. Jefferson tried to minimize federal control through reducing its reach and scope. He pursued a laissez- faire approach to governance in his time as President, which meant that

Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place. As it was definitely difficult to do so, the Constitution was ratified in

Tyranny can come in many different forms. It could only be one person ruling everything, or it could be any group of people. Tyranny means a cruel or oppressive government rule, which is usually started by someone with too much power, and they become corrupt. For this reason, In Philadelphia, 1787, 55 men met up for the Constitutional Convention. This convention aimed to fix all problems with the Articles of Confederation. However this idea was eventually scrapped and they wrote a whole new constitution. This constitution would protect America from tyranny, so they could keep a civilized and united country. The Constitution that was made helped defend America from almost all types of tyranny and is still helping us hundreds of years later.

Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

From the Constitution’s ratification in 1787 through the 1850s, many American historians shared the consensus that the founding fathers had designed the Constitution the way they did because they were trying to protect the citizens and their rights. James Kent was one very prominent historian among this group. In his book, Commentaries on American Law (1826), he stated “THE government of the United States was erected by the free voice and joint will of the people of America, for their common defence [defense] and general welfare...and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness.” (Kent) Essentially, James Kent was trying to convey the point

Jefferson and his followers shared very distinct ideals during his administration. The economy, education, and the culture and politics of the country were among his most premiered ideals, ones in which he focused a lot of time and energy on. When Jefferson and his followers, began their journey on setting forth and achieving their goals, they did everything to resist to any and all forms of aristocracy. They did not trust the aristocracy education system, the economy, and especially not the aristocracy politics.