Robert Yates Research Paper

In offering alternative interpretations of the origins of the Constitution, the author accomplishes his secondary purpose, to make the reader challenge what they know about the framing of the Constitution. Holton details the rebellion of the “Unruly Americans” against the state and national governments, using Adonijah Mathews as an ultimate example of the “common man.” Mathews’ views are presented in order to contrast the views of James Madison, whom it seems the author

In the books The Quartet and Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Ellis and Joyce Appleby discuss their thoughts on two important moments in American history and how they believe them to be revolutionary. The Quartet describes the political situation of the United States immediately following the American Revolution and how it made the transformation from a confederation into a republic. To do this, it follows the actions of four prominent men – George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison – as they work toward their goal of bringing about a new national government and discusses nationalism, issues such as economics and expansion, and arguments about personal, state, and federal powers. He argues that the debate over the Constitution was between “nationalists” and “confederationists”, that the second Revolution was a by-product of the first in that it took the systems of the newly-independent states and reworked them into a coherent national collective, and that without this change, the United States couldn’t have become a modern model of government.

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

--Through thorough analysis, what are the reasons for the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to ratifying the Constitution?

Whose side would you have been on in the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson’s or Alexander Hamilton’s? Both of these men served under George Washington in the first presidential cabinet, yet they had very different views of what government should be (Davis 86). My objective in this research essay is to inform the reader of why there was so much controversy between these two founding fathers, and to determine which side had the better views for our newly forming country.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

Samuel Seabury, when writing the Letters of A Westchester Farmer, is debating in the press the legitimacy of the Continental Congress that meet in Philadelphia a few months before, condemning this gathering as subversive to the British Empire and Seabury equates the colonial demand for legislative rights as arrogant and “whiggish nonsense”. Alexander Hamilton challenges these

I had become very interested in politics. In 1760 I served in the assembly of the Three Lower Counties. In 1762, I became the Philadelphia member of the Pennsylvania assembly. I lead the conservative side in many of their political debates. But I lost my position in 1764 in a debate against Benjamin Franklin.

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

In 1787-1788 federalist essays came to life thanks to James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton under the alias of “Publius”. This paper delves into the motivations of James Madison and how classical republicanism aided in the argument for the ratification.

After the colonies gained independence, the founding fathers soon found that becoming a new independent nation was going to be a difficult task. The biggest task was deciding on the division of power in the government. This issue divided the people into two groups, the federalists and the Jeffersonian republicans. Alexander Hamilton led the federalists and Thomas Jefferson led the republicans. These two important men in history would later show how the challenges of becoming a new nation. In this essay I will be analyzing the ideas of Linda K. Kerber’s “The Fears of the Federalists,” to Drew R. McCoy’s “The Fears of the Jeffersonian Republicans.” Furthermore, comparisons will be made about both essays to gain a better understanding of the struggles of government in early America.

I’m an American attorney, planter and politician who became known as an orator during the movement for independence in Virginia. I was born on May 29, 1736. Hanover County one my famous quotes “I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” Because he doesn't get to choose got another think, but all he wants is liberty and if it's not liberty death. I did not attend attend the convection because “I smelled a rat” Something inside me told me that i shouldn't stand to the convection because it was very suspicious. Because i am against the creation of a strong national government. I was elected governor of Virginia multiple times Although I opposed the formation of the U.S. Constitution as a threat to the

In Alfred Young’s essay The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution reported the actions that took place during the Philadelphia Convention. It was said that the Constitution was designed to last until the end of time. It was proposed that the national government should limit voting to the men of the community that held property in the form of land, a considerable farm or something with equal value. How could this work for the states that already granted suffrage to the people didn’t have these qualifications. What would the state do now, take away their right to vote? The end result was that each state decided that whoever voted in assembly would also vote for the house. Thomas Paine a radical democrat and influential part of the Revolutionary era advocated a democratic government where a single legislative would be at the top, and the executive branch would be elected from small localities by an extensive electorate where they would serve short terms. The original separation of the elitists was caused by fear of a mob and rebellion. Coercion and accommodation were to tactics used to control the threat of democratic majorities in the state. Anti-Federalists were looking to make numerous changes in the frame of the government. This would limit national power over the states, and curb the powers of the presidency while also protecting individual freedoms. Finally we come to the overwhelming opposition

At the inception of the nation many different views were promoted to create a lasting and free nation. Most popularized of these opinions were that of the federalist, constitution supporters, and the anti-federalist, constitutional critics. Brutus, the pen name for the anti-federalist, fears the tyranny of a central government and favors continued state autonomy. Publius, the pen name of the federalist, seeks to use the disadvantages of a central government to it advantage. Brutus is concerned that a large republic would lead to ambitious peoples in the central government effectively dissolving the state.