ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast Brutus 1's Response To The Anti Federalists

193 Words1 Page

The Anti-Federalist consisted of many proud men who believed that the bill of rights was in did necessary before executing the future government. Unlike the Federalist, who focused on a central government that could have personally stolen and threaten our freedom; had no right to engage the Constitution? In the document Brutus 1, had stated clearly his motive, “Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

    433 Words  | 2 Pages

    The anti-federalist wanted to improve the equality in the government this is clear with this quote "As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety". The anti-federalist believed that the constitution needs the bill of rights to protect people individual rights. The federalist were a strong central government .They wanted a strong leader and they wanted the separation of powers as stated in the federalist quote. "It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.

    Read More

  • Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Analysis

    564 Words  | 3 Pages

    The anti federalists were mainly apprehensive about the Constitution, because they favored strong state governments and felt that the Constitution

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton's Contribution Of The Preamble To The Constitution

    1511 Words  | 7 Pages

    Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Antifederaliss Were Right By Gary Galles

    313 Words  | 2 Pages

    The article, “The Antifederalists Were Right”, Mises Daily, September 27, 2006 by Gary Galles examines Anti-Federalists’ predictions and if we don’t limit of the federal government it will lead to corruption of power. The Anti-Federalist believed that ratifying the U.S Constitution will create an overbearing central government. Even though the Anti-Federalist lost the debate and was overlooked, their predictions about the result of the Constitution turned out the be true. The Anti-Federalist suggested the Bill of Rights to let the people have rights, however the Constitution was too vague which leads to abuse of power. Some of the vague laws are the “general welfare” which lead to the override limits on delegated federal powers and creating

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

    744 Words  | 3 Pages

    (This goes before the main argument) The main Argument between the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist was about the amount of control/authority that the government should have. Though the people were now the governing body there was not much protection and liberties that they were entitled to. James Madison did not want to risk the constitution not being ratified; he drafted the Bill of Rights. Even though the Anti-Federalist Failed to prevent the ratification of the U.S. Constitution led to what we know as the Bill of Rights, the ten amendments that protected the

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast The Three Fifths Compromise

    1157 Words  | 5 Pages

    In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalists, led by James Madison, argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people rights from the government because the government might get too powerful and hurt people’s rights and freedom. They had this fear because they suffered from the British tyranny and worried that the highly centralized government would make the miserable history happen again. Nevertheless, in favor of the government, the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the power of government, so it would not get too powerful. Also, they worried that people might forget to list certain rights in the Bill of Rights, so if later they were fighting for their rights that were not written in the document, the government might use it against them. Eventually, a compromise was made through a vote in Massachusetts; Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, but they should also submit amendments for the Congress to consider adding the Bill of Rights.

    Read More

  • Explain What Compromises Were Made At The Constitutional Convention

    705 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

    Read More

  • Differences Between The Federalists And Anti-Federalists

    203 Words  | 1 Pages

    When it came to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists the differences are many and at times very complex, due to the beliefs that the Federalists are nationalist at heart. The Federalists had an incredibly big role in shaping the new Constitution, which the Federalists used to create a stronger Constitution at great cost to the Anti-Federalists. If you ask the Anti-Federalists They believe that should be a ratification of the US Constitution in every state. But due to the Anti-Federalists being poor at organizing they really didn’t gain any ground. Although they didn’t achieve their goals of ratification of the US Constitution, but they did force the first congress under a new Constitution along with the bill of rights.

    Read More

  • What Led To The Formation Of The Anti-Federalist Groups

    799 Words  | 4 Pages

    In early 1787, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and other nationalist leaders decided to improve and create a perfect union. The Constitution was then created, and the people who supported it were called the Federalists. Led by Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist group supported the Constitution, but as soon as they introduced it to all the states, not all the people agreed and supported to what it said, and that is why the Anti-Federalist group was created. Anti-Federalist were the people who were against the Constitution and believed that it didn’t give enough rights to the individual citizens. They were constantly trying to add in The Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States, which they successfully did

    Read More

  • The Argument Against The Anti-Federalists

    99 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

    Read More

  • Compare Federalists And Anti Federalists

    214 Words  | 1 Pages

    Represented by Alexander Hamlton, they favored the constitution and were against the bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists feared/preferred a weak central government. They were represented by Thomas Jefferson, they favored the articles of confederation and were for the bill of rights. The warnings from the Anti-Federalists about the constitution were right. They warned the Federalists about the consequences of undelegated power becoming abused.

    Read More

  • Right To Bear Arms History

    866 Words  | 4 Pages

    But the funny thing is that the Anti-Federalists insisted on adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. With the Bill of Rights, come amendments Amendments are what make our Constitution modern. Our Bill of Rights

    Read More

  • Bill Of Rights Dbq

    862 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Anti-Federalists also believed that a constitution without a bill of rights would give excessive power to the federal government over individual states and the people. Also there was fear that a constitution

    Read More

  • Robert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary

    445 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Brutus And Antony's Speech

    884 Words  | 4 Pages

    Marcus Junius Brutus and Mark Antony both deliver speeches to justify the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE and both use Logos and Ethos to convince the Roman citizens to join their sides. Both sides deliver their speeches with vehemence and start by elucidating why Brutus killed Caesar to begin with, why Antony’s desire for revenge is justified, and what the future of Rome will be because of his death. Antony teases the citizens of Rome with the will of Caesar that he holds in hand and claims it will dishonor Brutus and the other conspirators and is also one of his vital uses of Ethos in his speech. Most of the citizens, if not all of them side with Antony and will most likely help him accede to a great title of power in the future and also betray Brutus because of what Antony has them believe, i.e. an ignoble assassin. Brutus and Antony 's speeches were both compelling, although Antony´s speech was more successful, but it is because he was able to manipulate the people of Rome with

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Brutus 1's Response To The Anti Federalists

Open Document