Delegates

Looking at Huckabee's delegate count for each state so far raises a few questions in me about how the election is going to play out from this point. First off, I see that he won in Louisiana primary with 69,665 votes but received no delegates from that state. I didn't even consider this as a possibility but apparently it is one. So where do all the delegates go, thats my question. I'll look that up later I guess. Secondly I see states like Oklahoma where only 6 delegates pledged to support Huckabee and even worse other states where only 1 delegate pledged to support Huckabee. This is odd to me because if I were a delegate I would reflect on the affect the number of delegates has on a candidate and would incorporate this through taking action and voting on the candidate that has a real chance of being elect. This raises worries for me because if there are really delegates who think like that then there is even less of a chance for delegates to pledge to support Huckabee in upcoming key states like Texas.

Super Tuesday

Today is the day. Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island and Vermont are holding their primarys today and Texas and Ohio are the big ones to worry about. Whenever I look on the news it seems like they are always talking about the democratic race and how Hillary should drop out and all that craziness. The democrats still have more than 600 votes to go until its over for them and Hillary and Obama are only 100 votes apart. It makes me laugh because in their view Huckabee should drop out but he isn't, so why should she? I guess there are things in play like tax dollars and such for her which makes that seem all the more stupid. I don't know there are pros and cons. Pro's are that a candidate who is a good one who might not have enough money to run himself would be able to with tax payers money. Also it gives us more of a hand in the elections I suppose, using the voters money to run for president. That can also be looked at negatively, especially when your money is going to a candidate you don't care for. More con's are people like Huckabee who want to be totally honest and run with what he has himself for money have less of a chance. I'm unsure about it. Today is the day though that McCain could win for sure. I'm still praying against it though. We know a guy who had a dream and in the dream he saw the letters OT like overtime and the letters stood for Texas and Ohio. I believe that God gives his people dreams to reveal what is to come so that encouraged me to pray that God does a miracle in Texas and Ohio. Amen.

Texas and Politics

Huckabee has posted on his site a last ditch effort as he says for the election. It's a 5 minute video about how texans are courageous and don't listen to what anyone tells them to do but always do what they decide to do. He mentions things like the Alamo and other parts of texas' history that would indicate that they are headstrong people who stand for freedom, family and faith-basically celebrating the many achievements of Texans. He also uses the idea that texans are headstrong people who stand for freedom as a way to incorporate the lessons of fighting for freedom they've learned in the past to fight with Huckabee for the same freedom. Of the 137 possible delegates for the republican party in Texas, John McCain needs only 120 of them to clinch the election. So this would seem to be the clincher and some might even say the end of the road, but I guess I'd side with Huckabee and hope and pray against all hope that a miracle happens. The next set of primaries are happening on a Tuesday again in a 8 days. They will include Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island and of course Texas. The other three states make up 125 delegates total with Ohio having the most at 88. I would hope Huckabee is putting some effort in at Ohio. His running without tax payers money I am seeing is truly a leap of faith. I didn't even realize until this year how much of a role tax payers played in the elections or that they even played a role at all. I'm finding out there is alot about Politics that I don't know. I'm glad I'm finding all this out now though when I have just turned 18 and actually have a possible part to play. Before I was too young to give a second thought to it but now I can actually play a role and so I want to know what role I play.

Cinderella Man

When Mike Huckabee first announced that he was running for president early in 2007, he was consistently voted to be unlikely to win with early gallup poles that showed 2 percent popularity early on with more than 20 percent behind the popularity of any of the other of the candidates. However, Huckabee began rising in popularity with Iowa victories with crowded rooms cheering for him as polls began to show that Huckabee's popularity was greater than anyone anticipated. As his popularity rose, so did the criticism against him. Research done on his tax policy's suggested voters should question him. I already mentioned his fair tax proposals and so I agree with his tax policy but people often surprise. It's the classic politic trick though, say what the voters want to hear and then never mention it again after you get elected. I guess I can't assume just because he is a Christian that he will be the best possible president. I am for the Cinderella man idea, I believe God can do anything and Huckabee winning the election certainly seems up to divine intervention. That would be me reimaging the probable future of America according to my values,

Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.
Ephesians 3:20

Huckabee Not Quiting

Romney dropped out of the election this last week but Huckabee stayed. I'm very glad that huckabee is still in and perplexed as to why Romney, who had more delegates than Huckabee or Ron Paul for that matter, dropped out. With that I want to know where the Romney's delegates will go. I really hope they go to Huckabee. Huckabee is quoted as saying for the reason why he did not drop out "I didn't major in Math, I majored in Miracles and I still believe in them." I think that is amazing and that by some move of God Huckabee will continue to run this race and become the republican front runner. I realize that in the natural McCain has around 700 delegates versus' Huckabee's two hundred but by I'm praying for a Miracle. I also voted in the Primarys the other day, it was the first time I ever voted for anything, kind of cool. It made me think about the whole party issue though since you have to check which party you are part of and I really don't want to be a part of any of the parties. They need to make a purely christian party. lol. I guess republican will have to do for now.

Energia

Huckabee's stance on energy is not a very creative one but this issue is a topic that I think is crucial to the continued economic survival of America. We have too much polution and gas prices are too high to continue using the energy we use now in our cars. When I first went to the CNN website to see where Huckabee stood on the energy issue all they showed was a very please all "We need to use every source of energy that exists and quite wasting our time on oil" statement. They also told me that he plans to end our energy dependance by his second term. When I went to his site I learned that President Nixon first declared that we would become Energy Dependant in 1980. That was 28 years ago! Huckabee also answers the objection that our buying of oil from the middle east only supports the terrorists. He wants to have a self sustained energy dependence which would include renewable environmental friendly energy sources like solar and biomass. He says if he became president he would "use the bully pulpit" to get congress to address this issue and solve the problem. This sounds good, especially if it is really possible to end our dependence on oil.
When compared to someone like Hillary Clinton I can see that all her proposals have a due date of 2030 or 2050 or something like that. I don't know how she is going to in force those after she is out of office. It is therefore nice to hear Huckabee say that he wants to stop our energy dependence by the end of his first term.

Huckabee's Status and FairTax

So after six states have had their primarys, Huckabee has the third most amount of votes with Mccain and Romney ahead of him by atleast 15 votes. I was looking at an article on Comcast that mentioned Huckabee's support of the FairTax which was a new term to me. I think I've heard it before but it didn't stick in my head. I did some active searching out of the meaning and looked it up and it seems to be a good deal. I'm still trying to understand it all but what I got out of it so far is that instead of the 30 percent sales tax that is currently in place, there would be a 23% sales tax as well as lots of other nice rebates. It also says that those below the poverty line will not be taxed at all. Also FairTax would supposidely make US products worth more on the international market making the US more competitive in the international market. I'm honestly not sure how to understand all this but this is what fairtax does. It seems like a good thing since it seems to lower the amount of things we are taxed on, for example on my pay checks, that would be nice.

Research and some Political Imagination

So I've done some research by looking on Huckabee's site and I've found that he does a lot of talking around the subject. I guess this is what any good politician would do which would explain why politicians are so hated by some many people. Anyways, he does have some ideas of what do to with issues like health care and education; for example he pushed education of the arts and music while governor of Arkansas. He also imagines preventive health care instead of just health care itself and says that if he were elected president he would input major reforms in our health care system. Sounds good but would he really do it? I don't know, history says no. Also he is in favor of tax cuts and proudly states that he cut taxes and fees 100 times as Arkansas Governor and he says that taxes aren't the problem nationally but it is more that our government has an overspending problem. Also on a religious note, he supports Israel which I think is really good.

Elections: Huckabee

So since Mike Huckabee came on the scene a few months each and everyone of mine and my moms conversations have been centered around him. I must confess to never having been interested in presidential elections and I still grab most of what I believe to be true from those around me, namely my parents. Nonetheless I know I need to make a concerted effort settle down into my own opinons and views and not rely on the opinions of those closest to me. Having said all this, I really like what this Huckabee has to say. I have watched a few of his public dialogues in the debates that he has been a part of on youtube and seen what his core beliefs are and they sound really good. All that said, talking to others around me they would point out how his economic and budget plans for this country are less than good. All I have been looking at so far are his core beliefs, I guess I need to see where he is on certain politcal policys what kind of political imagination he has invisioned for this county. Sadly I don't know enough about any of these topics. Blah, here we go research.

Mary AOD Creative Conflict

Yesterday on the way to school me, vince, justin and Ben were having a discussion that was sort of like a debate about love and feelings and the like. I said that feelings werent the same thing that love was because feelings come and go but love lasts forever. They said that love is a feeling. After a while of talking it over they came to the conclusion that I was actually right in my reasoning. Just one of them came to this conclusion actually and he acknowledged that I was right but he wouldn't say why he thought so he just acknowledged that I was right. To get to this point I acknowledged that we seemed to have different views of what the word feelings was and that he might term that commitment and faithfulness that is love as a feeling of commitment that you have. Whether or not we did have different views I don't know but we did confront each other in a way that we both grew in our understanding of love.

Portfolio: Reflective Letter

Over the last 2-3 months I have taken writing 101 and successfully completed my first quarter of college classes at Puget Sound Early College as a junior in high school. I came into this class having just completed my most challenging writing class to date with Alison Kestle at Mount Rainier. There I developed skills in writing shorter sentences, theses, and really long papers with slightly better grammar. While I would love to point out all my improvements and nothing else, my weaknesses and places that need improvement are also very real. My newly developed strengths are also the ones in most need of refining in many aspects. Nonetheless, I have learned to be more pointed in my writing though some of my standards are not quite as high as others. I am proud of the things I have accomplished in my writing as well as what I have learned working in groups despite my continuing imperfections.

In each of the essays that I have supplied you should notice the variety of sentence lengths as well as the pointedness in each sentence and paragraph. This quarter I have had to focus more on having my topic sentences of each paragraph actually govern the topic of the entire paragraph which is harder than it sounds. This is seen in my Bacon’s Rebellion Essay in the 6th paragraph of the essay. The paragraph starts with a sentence about Berkeley’s mistake in banning trade and this subject carries all throughout the paragraph. As a result, my editing skills have gone through the test and I have improved very much in that area as well. The facts I have supplied are not random and without a connection to the main topic but support very well what I am endeavoring to show in each paper. This is seen in my paper arguing against the ratification of the constitution, “The government’s power gave them the ability to enforce laws contrary to the states current laws in their own constitutions (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). This was in effect forcing the residents of that state to comply with what the heads of the government thought right and good for them.” This form of despotism was the very thing the former English colonists were trying to get away from with the constitution. Also a major improvement has been my ability to work in a group to write an essay. Learning to collaborate was a major step for me and I really feel like I learned a lot from it.

My current strengths are also the very things that I am still in the process of improving. Last year in my sophomore year I learned for the first time what a thesis was and how to write one. Because of this I am also still learning how to write them in a clear, concise manner that directs my paper. For example in the rough draft of my Bacon's Rebellion my thesis stated that something had to be done about the many colonists entering the colony each year. However this had nothing to do with my subject of how classes caused Bacon's Rebellion. Still what I have learned is not fully disgraceful. Another weakness is using words that sound intelligent out of context. This is not overwhelmingly noticeable all of the time but occasionally pops up in my writing. A major aspect of my writing that needs help would be my ever present habit of adding extra words in that are unnecessary. These words have been pointed out by many of my classmates and my hope is that you will not find them in either of these essays. Habits do tend to die hard though.

My academic writing is always evolving and growing. Over the last year or so I have learned how to say what I needed in few words with a more directed point. This skill also, not surprisingly, flows into my personal writing as well. It helps me write what I want using less space and not confusing whoever I might be writing to. This is something I haven’t paid that close of attention to but becomes obvious when I start to reflect on how I write and the way I try to say what I need to.

Portfolio: Anti-Federalist Essay

Anti-federalism: New York

By Ben Fader, Becca Fisher, Ian Furgason and Ramila Gulieva

The ratification of the constitution in the 1780’s and 90’s faced many obstacles within the 13 colonies. States like New York saw the danger of such a document that would unite 13 sovereign states under one law making a government with one presiding member resembling the English king. The fear of despotism along with the obvious differences between slave owning, tobacco selling southern states and fish selling northern states made many in New York wonder how these could ever come together as one country with one common focus. However, the biggest requirement of the average anti-federalist was that a Bill of Rights be made and placed in high importance in the government upholding the rights of the people. Without this, there would be no ratification of any constitution.

With the end of the American Revolution, a new government was established as the states joined together in what was called The Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, a legal document drawn up by the continental congress, governed the Confederation. After the war with the British, states acquired a large debt that began the wave of an enormous amount of taxes, which people paid in hard money. Shay’s Rebellion was started by a farmer who could not pay with hard money (The American Promise). Shay’s Rebellion was a good example of how the Confederation government is weak and ineffective as it was unable to squelch the uprising effectively. Many people started to think about a central government with all thirteen states together in one nation. To make the central government more effective they needed a constitution or a written document that showed the rights and liberties of people. However, before the constitution could be identified as a legitimate document, states had to ratify it.

But not all the states agreed, New York being one. As a state consisting mostly of anti-federalists, most people believed that without a bill of rights, they could not “enable the people to judge the legitimacy of acts of government” (Bill of Rights). Without such a document, the people could not determine whether or when government was abusing its power. Without a strong textual foundation, rights would eventually be lost (The American Promise). In the Agrippa XVII, James Winthrop writes, “a bill of rights is essential to the security of the persons and the property of people” (The Debate On The Constitution). Federalists did not initially take Anti-federalist objections seriously, but as the ratification campaign progressed, they began to rethink their position. Jefferson expressed his support for a bill of rights in letters to James Madison. Madison was strongly committed to the protection of freedom of conscience, rights of property, and basic civil liberties; "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." (Bill of rights)

The constitutional union of states would be ruled by one political body. This however went directly against the uniqueness of each Sovereign State. Each state had varieties of people, economics as well as governmental structures. Though the constitution clearly dictates "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State... (U.S Constitution, Article IV, Section 1)" it was hard to see the States being held accountable for everything through the Federal Government, especially for New York. Mandating a national economy would be difficult, considering the variety of trade and economic structures that existed within the states. For instance, the southern states had a strong economic base generally exporting slave-grown tobacco to Britain. Those in local government were generally rich plantation owners that would or could not change their entire economic base just to appease northern states. While said states like New York had not chosen to outlaw slave labor, they began leaning toward gradual emancipation of all slaves. Southern plantation owners feared that if the constitution was ratified, their way of making a living would begin to be frowned upon. The result of which would be that a general lack of understanding would cast their actions in an unfair light. Northern states such as Massachusetts had a strong fishing economy where fish were exported across the Atlantic. Unlike tobacco products, most fish exported from Massachusetts went to the West Indies. Therefore, New Englanders had difficulty relating and debating trading aspects with southern states like Virginia who mainly traded with England. These clear and present differences were in no ways hidden from the eyes of New Yorkers, and though Federalist ideals began to grow, a majority of New York's leading men were against ratification based on these economic differences.

Federalists looked at these economic differences differently. According to their constitution, the central government had an unhindered ability to regulate commerce (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). It was believed that checks and balances, a concept written into the very fabric of the Constitution, would negate any power tripping. It was thought therefore that this could only benefit the nation as a whole by uniting economic, political and relational viewpoints. In the senate, for example, each state took a part in deciding laws by sending their own representatives known as senators. However, anti-federalist’s believed that the extreme differences between a senator from Rhode Island and a senator from South Carolina would cause the two to not come to any agreement.

Other differences are found in the diverse forms of government that began to arise during the time of the confederation. For example, New Jersey completely removed the position of the governor and chose to have a congress to govern the entire state. This act was brought on by the near tyranny of the king of England who enforced his will upon the colonists against their consent. These varying attitudes on government made it difficult for some Americans to justify a central power.

It was inconceivable to many New Yorkers that a document could be passed joining together diverse, sovereign states. This was not because they were ignorant of common ground or of their omnipresent liberties, rather, for fear of a tyrannical central government. Article II of the Articles of Confederation gave each state its sovereignty, something that in effect the states had enjoyed since their days as British colonies. Each colony was given a charter signed by the King that in essence created a distant British society that was very much autonomous. The colony could act however it wished in carrying out the government, deciding what to do with land, the structure of society and foreign relations. Of course, the states are not guaranteed or free to all of these things under the Articles of Confederation, for as Article III dictates, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare”. A loose union of sovereign states had been in effect for much of the last decade. However with inescapable problems beginning to arise within the states, many proposed the answer in the form of a constitution.

Federalists argued that many problems, such as war debt, factions, and poor foreign relations could all be resolved under an authoritative central government. Hoping that each state could pay off its debt was not enough, there needed to be accountability and a plan in place. Alexander Hamilton later proposed that all the debt be lumped into one sum that the federal government set aside money to pay off. Factions continued to grow under the Articles of Confederation, and incidences such as the afore-mentioned Shay's Rebellion only reaffirmed this danger. States divided in government policies and ideals could not squelch an uprising effectively, or stop one from beginning in the first place. Another hope was that a powerful government would do away with assumptions by the international community that the United States was weak; incapable of taking a place on the world stage. No longer would states be making their own laws to fit their specific needs, rather, all power to make and set laws into motion would be given to the legislative branch of the new Federal government (Constitution, Article I Section 1).

None of this argument belayed the fears of the Anti-federalist majority in New York. A central government would be too powerful, and would not represent the country well. The ability to maintain a military during peace time, the ability to override State policy and a position of executive power too greatly resembled the British Empire for New Yorkers to accept and ratify this document. Under the Constitution, the Legislative branch would write up laws that could either be enacted or rejected by the executive branch, similar in theory to Parliament and the King. This similarity only insinuated to New Yorkers that the very same pitfalls and despotism that resulted in England’s government setup would also result from this very same proposed government. The government’s power gave them the ability to enforce laws contrary to the states current laws in their own constitutions (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). This was in effect forcing the residents of that state to comply with what the heads of the government thought right and good for them. Even if this went directly against the residents wants and desires. This is despotism in its truest form.

The lack of a bill of rights, inherent differences between the states and the amount of power given to the federal government were pivotal issues that initially solidified New York as an Anti-federalist state. The fear of despotism and the denial of the liberties of every man, woman and child was very real. The need for a bill of rights could not be bypassed. James Winthrop spoke truth when he described the Bill of Rights as “essential to the security of persons” and their property and it was not for our founding fathers to say otherwise. The Anti-federalist mentality that existed within the majority of New Yorkers pointed out that the differences between them and a southern tobacco planter were far too great to be ignored. Tobacco sent to England from the south and fish sent to the West Indies from the north caused a gap in the common ground of the states. New Jersey’s removal of a governor only bolsters this fact. Based on the Articles of Confederation, it was not right to subject the sovereign states to a higher political power. Therefore, the Constitution had no place attempting to conform multiple diverse populations to one order, nor was there any reason to limit the rights of a free people.

Bibliography

U.S Constitution and Articles of Confederation

Mount, Steve. "The U.S. Constitution Online." The U.S. Constitution Online. 1 Oct. 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 .

Debate On The Adoption of The Consitution

"THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." The Constitution Society. The Constitution Society. 13 Nov. 2007 .

New York Sentiments On Constitution

Thorpe, Francis N. "The Constitutional History of the United States." Google. 1901.
13 Nov. 2007. Chicago Callahgan & Company

Federalism and Shared Powers

FISHER, LOUIS. "Federalism and Shared Powers." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Eds. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. 1010-1013.
6 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

Bill of Rights

Rakove, Jack. "Bill of Rights in U.S. Constitution." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 454-457. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 25 Nov. 2007

Antifederalists

Flaherty, Martin S. "Antifederalists." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 200-202. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

The American Promise

The American Promise, by James L. Roark, Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, Susan M. Hartmann, 2005

Federalists and Anti-FederalistsChin, Jonathan, and Alan Stern. "Federalists and Anti-Federalists." Federalists and Anti-Federalists. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007 .

The Debate On The Constitution

The Debate on the Constitution Edited by Bernard Bailyn 1993 by Literary Classics of the U.S, Inc.,New York, N.Y. history Society of Wisconsin: copyright1977 by The University Press. Reprinted by permission.

Personal Responses

Bekka

Anti federalists did not want to ratify the constitution because they were fearful of the government. They did not want a corrupt government that would take advantage of the citizens. I understand why many people were worried about not having a bill of rights. They wanted freedom and did not want their rights taken away. When my parents tell me how to speak, or tell me I am not allowed to do an activity, I can get irritated. I don’t like when my parents attempt to take away some of my rights, so I definitely would not like the government taking away my rights.

I believe I would position myself as a federalist mostly because don’t know what life would be like if the constitution was not ratified. I’ve lived my whole life in the time period which American citizens live under obligation to the constitution. I like the constitution as it is now because I enjoy having rights such as freedom of speech and religion. America has a diverse body of people who have different beliefs and these rights protect all citizens no matter what they believe. I also like the idea of the checks and balance system. This allows elected citizens from all fifty states to play a role in the government by being in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It stops the president from over taxing citizens and becoming corrupt. Originally the anti federalists did not like the idea of a check and balance system because the thought that it might fail. They were ignorant to the fact that this would stop the president from taking advantage of the citizens. This system of checks and balances has worked for about two hundred years. In my life time I have not seen the president become corrupt due to this system.

Ian

Many American’s in the late 1700’s had to struggle with whether or not they would ratify a constitution that brought all 13 sovereign states under one government. Many heard this phrase and immediately negative thoughts of the oppressive English king entered their minds and almost immediately they rejected the idea. Their rejection however was based on fear and ignorance. Those who rejected this idea, known as anti-federalists, did not have much of an understanding about the new proposed government. They did not think of the fact that this government was proposed by a few of the most radical men who were most hostile towards the British King and hated his rule even more than they did. These Anti-Federalists believed that too much power was given to the executive branch of the government to which the president belonged. However the government that these radicals proposed included representatives from each state so that each would have a say. It composed a senate and a house, two groups of representatives from each state which provided checks and balances within this newfound government. This insured that no one group of people could enforce their will upon another. Another fact that these anti-federalists did not consider is the outcome of thirteen sovereign states being allowed to co-inhabit one body of land. They believed that peace and prosperity could best be attained by leaving the states to govern themselves. They failed to think about the wars and the oppression caused by more powerful states preying on less powerful states. This would be horrendous and was all too likely. Upon consideration of all these facts, I am convinced that if I were to live then, I would be a constitution accepting Federalist and not an Anti-Federalist.

Ramila

In early beginning of free America , many great changes took place and one of the significant changes is ratification of the constitution. Many struggles were to ratify the constitution, since the states consisted of Anti-federalists and Federalist. Anti-federalist are people who are against the ratification of constitution, and Federalists are people who are for the constitution. If I were a person that lived in this all confusion about the constitution, I probably would be a Federalist.

If anyone would ask me “why?” I would answer from the modern point of view because no one at that time knew exactly what is going to happen next, “I choose the Federalist way because I like the idea of all thirteen states together as one nation, this way states together have more power against anyone. Besides, the central government is better-organized then confederate government in taxation etc. “Most likely Anti-federalist would ague against my views by saying that states should not join together because states, “..already on sure economic footing, that could afford to remain independent…” (American Promise). In addition, Anti-federalists feared the people would loose their liberties. Anti-federalists should have looked better on the plan of government because it is clearly explaining people will have all rights with the new constitution. But, now days we cannot judge what happen in the history because we know the history from the second hand experience.

Ben Fader

Not only to buck the trend that seems so present, but having also been immersed in the anti-federalist viewpoint, it is safe to say that I would indeed stand against the ratification of the Constitution. Not that I'm against military spending or increased security, rather, it is clear to me that each state was so unique that immediately subjecting states to the goals of the most powerful individuals was in my opinion wrong. Clearly the Articles needed revision, but that's it. Certain powers should or could have been given to a limited central government, and perhaps this body could have handled things that all states were in need of or agreed upon; but having the variety of goals and needs placed under a powerful federal government only leads to concern. Does anyone else perhaps feel that their voice is not being heard? Well I do, and much of it is the extent of the bureaucracy and red tape necessary for those in power to maintain and exercise that power. If States had more control, it would be that much easier to communicate on a more direct level and my vote would mean more with the absence of the electoral college. All in all, I currently am very dissatisfied with the way things work, and though I love this country, I can see many advantages to a revised union without a powerful federal government. I would be an anti-federalist, through and through.

Portfolio: Bacon's Rebellion Essay

Whether it is the richest versus the poorest or survival of the fittest; importance and power have always been based off physical possessions and prowess. The 18th century was no exception. Poor colonists of the time had little control over their own lives in government. The rich, plantation owning members of local government constructed all of the parameters of daily life in the Chesapeake Bay Colony. These parameters were set up according to the plantation owner’s needs. They did not take one moment to consider the needs of their fellow, poorer colonists. A few poor colonists felt that at least one of their needs was too great to be ignored, the need for land. The problem with this land is that it belonged to fierce, warring Indians with which the wealthy government officials had already made pacts promising to not touch it. This was a problem since these pacts were made without the poor farming colonist’s consent. The poor farmers in Chesapeake Bay were less able to get land due to the power and privilege of the upper classed government elite.

The lack of sympathy for the need of poor farmers for land was the prevailing issue as wealthy land owners controlled colonial government. This fact is expressed by a poor farmer named William Tyler, “Nether the governor nor counsel could or would doe any poore men right, but that they would shew favor to great men and wronge the poore.”(Roark 88) Wealthy land owning government officials had made several treaties with Indians to not take their land to prevent war and fighting between the natives and the colonists. This action taken to help the colonial town was actually solely helping the wealthy land owners who made it, and not the lower classed former servants who it affected the most. The evil was not in the making of the treaty itself, but making it without the consent of the majority of the colonists was. The Indians attacking a local farmer's land and Governor Berkeley not taking any action would be another example of the apathetic view taken by the government of the poor's needs. When the colonist’s realized Berkeley had no intention of defending them, they took their own action and fought back against the Indians.

This need for land originated as the indentured servants of Chesapeake Bay began fulfilling their promised years of service to their masters and came into a great need for their own land on which to farm and live. This need put the lower classed, newly freed colonists’ patience on edge. To push it off Indians attacked a local farmer’s land supposedly because the farmer failed to owe them for certain favors the Indians paid him. The impotent farmers’ worries about obtaining land and freedom revealed themselves in the fury of attacks by both Indians and colonists that followed. To guide this vigilante behavior Nathaniel Bacon led this band of rebels with his famous declaration “We must defend ourselves against all Indians in general, for that they were all enemies” (www.pbs.org). In this quote Bacon tells the colonists that they want land from Indians whom he hates and he has the power to give it to them.

Bacon himself had his own aggravations to bring against Berkeley. Nathaniel Bacon was born wealthy in England and moved to America when his cousin did so and married the governor of Massachusetts. Bacon, a wealthy plantation owner, saw opportunity to get back at the Indians who trespassed and caused problems on his plantation. What really upset Bacon however was Berkeley denying him a commission of soldiers, Berkeley obviously knowing Bacon's intent was to attack the Indians. It was well known that Berkeley frowned upon making war with local Indians who were presently allied with the colony for that might put "all the Indians against us" as he put it (www.pbs.org ). This in itself cannot not be looked down on, however the fact that Berkeley decided against a war with the natives without the consent of the largest part of his colony was a mistake. He took advantage of his control as the wealthy, plantation owning governor and made a decision that he thought right. Though his decision might not have been wrong, he made it wrongly without allowing the seemingly unimportant farmers to have a say. The problems that followed were easily predictable.

Bacon, seeing and even empathizing with many of the colonist’s complaints, led the colonists in their discontent against Berkeley and the Natives surrounding Chesapeake Bay. Upon receiving information of Bacon’s exploits Berkeley tried his best to take control of the colony. When Bacon fled with his men into the forest after his first attack on the Pamunkey tribe, Berkeley sent out a petition declaring Bacon to be a rebel. He also declared that his men would be pardoned if they would give up and stop following Bacon (www.nps.gov ). He then proceeded to remove Bacon from his seat on the counsel which Berkeley had given him a year earlier. The counsel was a group of men equivalent to the congress of present day America. Bacon however, in rebellion of Berkeley’s unfair decisions, did not listen to Berkeley and attacked the Occaneecheee tribe. In July of 1676 Bacon wrote up a declaration forcing all men of the colony to swear loyalty to himself in whatever way necessary. Though many colonists would have been quick to do so in view of the lands that they were attaining under Bacon's rebellious leadership, this was not enough to stop Berkeley and his upper class supporters from taking back control of the colony.

Another ill-made decision by the wealthy government officials was the decree by Governor William Berkeley that prevented many less influential colonists from trading with local Indian tribes. The purpose of this decree was so colonists would not trade arms with Indians so as to encourage peace. Lower class colonists however accused Berkeley of being corrupt in making this decision because he allowed many of his wealthy, land owning friends to still continue to trade with the Indians. The colonist’s had a major point. If Berkeley was going to outlaw trading, he should have outlawed all trading, and not allow a select few to do the trading while banning all who were not quite as prosperous. This all gave incentive to Nathaniel Bacon since he himself traded often with the Indians.

What was unique about this rebellion was the white and black comradeship. Poor black and white farmers alike fought the upper classed colonists to obtain the land they wanted making no distinguishment between white and black skin. When wealthy plantation owners came to this realization, they realized they needed to make common ground with the white lower classed farmers so that their authority would never again be challenged in such a way. Slavery was the answer. After the rebellion slavery began to take hold in the colony and white men, whether poor or not, slowly became equal in superiority over black skinned farmers.

In the end twenty three dissenters were hanged for their part in the rebellion and King Charles II retired Berkeley from office, appointing an English governor more suited to his interests. This was the first step taken by the king to remove the liberties that many colonists had come to the new world to enjoy. The king wanted a tighter grip on his new settlement that he felt was getting out of his control. However the steps he took soon incited the American Revolution in which the impotent American’s fought for their freedom from the ruling English.

Today people with more power constantly out rule those with less power and set up parameters and guidelines often according to their own desires. At the church that hosts the youth group I attend there is a youth room upstairs where we met when I first started attending the youth group. I had the most fun there that I had ever had at any church and I later became a Christian, largely in part because in that youth room we were able to have so much fun. That was the first time that I ever considered that worshiping God could be fun. Later the church decided that they didn’t want the youth meeting up in the room because they were worried about things getting stolen or broken. What they didn’t realize was that kid’s lives, like my own, were changed in that room. The worst part was that we kids, the reason the youth group even exists, had no say in the matter. They were worried solely about their own property and needs and paid no attention to the needs of those they hosted in their church building.

The class and position of a member of a society was seen in Bacon's Rebellion to also determine their consequent influence on the community. In Bacon’s rebellion, the case of class influenced whether or not the lower classed inferior colonists would get the land they needed from the sometimes vicious Indians. The authority they needed to sway the governmental powers in the colony to war against the Indians was not in their hands though they were the majority. Maybe the poor farmers were corrupt in wanting land that belonged to someone else, but the government was also corrupt for catering to their own personal interests above those of the colony at large. Those that have gained an importance will sway the laws, whether they are rich or poor. The rebels of Bacon’s rebellion also proved this fact as they made themselves important so that the governing elite could no longer ignore them. They fought hard to make their voices heard in a government run by the influential upper class.

Bibliography

www.pbs.org

"Africans in American/Part 1/Bacon's Rebellion." Pbs.Org. Pbs. 12 Dec. 2007 .

www.nps.org

McCulley, Susan. "Bacon's Rebellion." Nps.Gov. June 1987. 12 Dec. 2007 .

Roark

The American Promise, by James L. Roark, Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, Susan M. Hartmann, 2005

Portfolio: Final Exam

“Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that… a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means… the history of the present.” Michel Foucault pointedly says that studying history for the sake of knowing what happened in the past is of no use to him. But instead the point of studying history is to learn how to act in the present. Foucault was a French historian and philosopher who challenged the way people thought of and saw the subjects of life. In this quote the reader sees that he has challenged himself with this question and he is now challenging us with it; why consider history? To learn about the awesome feats and accomplishments of men of the past? To know about the failures and oppressions of rulers and monarchs of the past? Many people today do not realize the reasons with which they consider the past and I believe Michel Foucault found this all too true and troubling. In a sense Foucault is restating the fact that learning something just to learn it does nothing if you don’t put it into practice. Over and over again I have seen the truth of this statement in my everyday life and it inspires me to ask myself why I appreciate and consider history and how I am affected by my own views.

History relates to my life for numerous reasons from day to day. For my history class I consider it in order to debate and discuss on the right, the wrong and the sometimes senselessness of it all. However I have found that much of what I learn in History 101 relates to my own life as well. For instance, as we were discussing colonial lifestyles for my second essay with Carolyn I noticed a cultural belief which I myself uphold today but I know few others who do. In colonial times members of the opposite sex would never show any sort of displays of affection whether it be hugging, hand holding or kissing in public. Married couples would not even so much as kiss in front of others; it was considered improper. Today people from puberty up do not think twice of joining themselves at the hip with the opposite sex and displaying their affection for them in the most public of places. I absolutely despise this behavior and when I learned that a few generations ago I would have been overwhelming agreed with it helped me to see I was not the first to think along such lines.

Considering history has benefited me in ways that are too numerous to count. History helps me understand why people act like they do. I take what has happened in the past and connect it to my own life and realize that the proverb is true, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” History tells me how others in the past have responded to problems they have faced and how it worked for them. By this I can know how to respond to those same problems. Therefore the things that I take out of history are largely the things that I can relate to my own life. Because of this while taking History 101 I did not get every fact and event ingrained into my memory because they aren’t all useful to me.

If I were to answer Foucault’s question by saying ‘I consider history just to know what happened in the past’ then my learning in History 101 would have been less motivated and less in depth. I have found that since taking History 101 much of history relates, in some way, to my own life today. Because of this it has fascinated me all the more and has made me want to ask more questions and learn more about past revolutions, governments as well as cultural beliefs and mindsets. Much of what we have learned in Ben’s class involves past governmental structures and how they either failed or succeeded. For example the English Monarchy of the 17^th and 18^th centuries was very power hungry and controlling towards the American colonists who considered England their motherland. England’s abuse of their authority over the colonists caused the colonists to rebel and start their own government that would not and could not abuse its power over them. As I learned about how our government started I began to get more of an understanding of not only how it works today but why it works the way it does. This really interested me because it will help me to better understand how to vote in the upcoming presidential elections.

By learning about the history of how America was founded I have learned how much of history actually pertains to modern life. I also have a better understanding of why things happen the way they do in American government as well as in American culture. As I consider history it means nothing to me unless I can connect it to my life so that I might learn something from it. History is about more than just knowing what terrible event happened 200 years ago. It’s about why it happened and how we can prevent it from happening again.

Mary AOD Diversity

The other day I was talking to my mom about how she has learned about root systems and things in the Hebrew calendar that all relate to the Bible and how I didn't really understand them. Actually its not just her but its a lot of people around me who have been mentoring me and encouraging me in my walk as a christian. And while I know a fair amount about the Bible and I am usually the person my friends go to for information about the Bible this is one of the subjects I just could not wrap my mind around. Nonetheless, I've just been accepting these doctrines because I realize I can't understand everything at the moment. Obviously I don't just accept everything people tell me but I accept it until I see it proven false. Many well known, credible people are saying these things and I just accept them as something new, something different and something I will hopefully understand more fully in the future.

Portfolio: Final Exam

“Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that… a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means… the history of the present.” Michel Foucault pointedly says that studying history for the sake of knowing what happened in the past is of no use to him. But instead the point of studying history is to learn how to act in the present. Foucault was a French historian and philosopher who challenged the way people thought of and saw the subjects of life. In this quote the reader sees that he has challenged himself with this question and he is now challenging us with it; why consider history? To learn about the awesome feats and accomplishments of men of the past? To know about the failures and oppressions of rulers and monarchs of the past? Many people today do not realize the reasons with which they consider the past and I believe Michel Foucault found this all too true and troubling. In a sense Foucault is restating the fact that learning something just to learn it does nothing if you don’t put it into practice. Over and over again I have seen the truth of this statement in my everyday life and it inspires me to ask myself why I appreciate and consider history and how I am affected by my own views.

History relates to my life for numerous reasons from day to day. For my history class I consider it in order to debate and discuss on the right, the wrong and the sometimes senselessness of it all. However I have found that much of what I learn in History 101 relates to my own life as well. For instance, as we were discussing colonial lifestyles for my second essay with Carolyn I noticed a cultural belief which I myself uphold today but I know few others who do. In colonial times members of the opposite sex would never show any sort of displays of affection whether it be hugging, hand holding or kissing in public. Married couples would not even so much as kiss in front of others; it was considered improper. Today people from puberty up do not think twice of joining themselves at the hip with the opposite sex and displaying their affection for them in the most public of places. I absolutely despise this behavior and when I learned that a few generations ago I would have been overwhelming agreed with it helped me to see I was not the first to think along such lines.

Considering history has benefited me in ways that are too numerous to count. History helps me understand why people act like they do. I take what has happened in the past and connect it to my own life and realize that the proverb is true, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” History tells me how others in the past have responded to problems they have faced and how it worked for them. By this I can know how to respond to those same problems. Therefore the things that I take out of history are largely the things that I can relate to my own life. Because of this while taking History 101 I did not get every fact and event ingrained into my memory because they aren’t all useful to me.

If I were to answer Foucault’s question by saying ‘I consider history just to know what happened in the past’ then my learning in History 101 would have been less motivated and less in depth. I have found that since taking History 101 much of history relates, in some way, to my own life today. Because of this it has fascinated me all the more and has made me want to ask more questions and learn more about past revolutions, governments as well as cultural beliefs and mindsets. Much of what we have learned in Ben’s class involves past governmental structures and how they either failed or succeeded. For example the English Monarchy of the 17^th and 18^th centuries was very power hungry and controlling towards the American colonists who considered England their motherland. England’s abuse of their authority over the colonists caused the colonists to rebel and start their own government that would not and could not abuse its power over them. As I learned about how our government started I began to get more of an understanding of not only how it works today but why it works the way it does. This really interested me because it will help me to better understand how to vote in the upcoming presidential elections.

By learning about the history of how America was founded I have learned how much of history actually pertains to modern life. I also have a better understanding of why things happen the way they do in American government as well as in American culture. As I consider history it means nothing to me unless I can connect it to my life so that I might learn something from it. History is about more than just knowing what terrible event happened 200 years ago. It’s about why it happened and how we can prevent it from happening again.

Revised Letter

Over the last 2-3 months I have taken writing 101 and successfully completed my first quarter of college classes at Puget Sound Early College as a junior in high school. I came into this class having just completed my most challenging writing class to date with Alison Kestle at Mount Rainier. There I developed skills in writing shorter sentences, theses, and really long papers with slightly better grammar. While I would love to point out all my improvements and nothing else, my weaknesses and places that need improvement are also very real. My newly developed strengths are also the ones in most need of refining in many aspects. Nonetheless, I have learned to be more pointed in my writing though some of my standards are not quite as high as others. I am proud of the things I have accomplished in my writing as well as what I have learned working in groups despite my continuing imperfections.

In each of the essays that I have supplied you should notice the variety of sentence lengths as well as the pointedness in each sentence and paragraph. This quarter I have had to focus more on having my topic sentences of each paragraph actually govern the topic of the entire paragraph which is harder than it sounds. This is seen in my Bacon’s Rebellion Essay in the 6th paragraph of the essay. The paragraph starts with a sentence about Berkeley’s mistake in banning trade and this subject carries all throughout the paragraph. As a result, my editing skills have gone through the test and I have improved very much in that area as well. The facts I have supplied are not random and without a connection to the main topic but support very well what I am endeavoring to show in each paper. This is seen in my paper arguing against the ratification of the constitution, “The government’s power gave them the ability to enforce laws contrary to the states current laws in their own constitutions (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). This was in effect forcing the residents of that state to comply with what the heads of the government thought right and good for them.” This form of despotism was the very thing the former English colonists were trying to get away from with the constitution. Also a major improvement has been my ability to work in a group to write an essay. Learning to collaborate was a major step for me and I really feel like I learned a lot from it.

My current strengths are also the very things that I am still in the process of improving. Last year in my sophomore year I learned for the first time what a thesis was and how to write one. Because of this I am also still learning how to write them in a clear, concise manner that directs my paper. For example in the rough draft of my Bacon's Rebellion my thesis stated that something had to be done about the many colonists entering the colony each year. However this had nothing to do with my subject of how classes caused Bacon's Rebellion. Still what I have learned is not fully disgraceful. Another weakness is using words that sound intelligent out of context. This is not overwhelmingly noticeable all of the time but occasionally pops up in my writing. A major aspect of my writing that needs help would be my ever present habit of adding extra words in that are unnecessary. These words have been pointed out by many of my classmates and my hope is that you will not find them in either of these essays. Habits do tend to die hard though.

My academic writing is always evolving and growing. Over the last year or so I have learned how to say what I needed in few words with a more directed point. This skill also, not surprisingly, flows into my personal writing as well. It helps me write what I want using less space and not confusing whoever I might be writing to. This is something I haven’t paid that close of attention to but becomes obvious when I start to reflect on how I write and the way I try to say what I need to.

Reflective Letter Draft (No Conclusion)

Over the last 2-3 months I have taken writing 101 and successfully, as far as I can tell, completed my first quarter of college classes at Puget Sound Early College as a junior in high school. I came into this class having just completed my most challenging writing class to date with Alison Kestle at Mount Rainier. There I developed skills in writing shorter sentences, theses, and really long papers with slightly better grammar. While I would love to point out all my improvements and nothing else, my weaknesses and places that need improvement are also very real. My newly developed strengths are also the ones in most need of refining in many aspects. Nonetheless, I have learned to be more pointed in my writing though some of my standards are not quite as high as others. I am proud of the things I have accomplished in my writing as well as what I have learned working in groups despite my continuing imperfections.

In each of the essays that I have supplied you should notice the variety of sentence lengths as well as the pointedness in each sentence and paragraph. This quarter I have had to focus more on having my topic sentences of each paragraph actually govern the topic of the entire paragraph which is harder than it sounds. As a result, my editing skills have gone through the test and I have improved very much in that area as well. The facts I have supplied are not random and without a connection to the main topic but support very well what I am endeavoring to show in each paper. Also a major improvement has been my ability to work in a group to write an essay. Learning to collaborate was a major step for me and I really feel like I learned a lot from it.

My current strengths are also the very things that I am still in the process of improving. Last year in my sophomore year I learned for the first time what a thesis was and how to write one. Because of this I am also still learning how to write them in a clear, concise manner that directs my paper. Still what I have learned is not fully disgraceful. Another weakness is using words that sound intelligent out of context. This is not overwhelmingly noticeable all of the time but occasionally pops up in my writing. A major aspect of my writing that needs help however would be my ever present habit of adding extra words in that are unnecessary. These words have been pointed out by many of my classmates and my hope is that you will not find them in either of these essays. Habits do tend to die hard though.

My academic writing is always evolving and growing. Over the last year or so I have learned how to say what I needed in few words with a more directed point. This skill also, not surprisingly, flows into my personal writing as well. It helps me write what I want using less space and not confusing whoever I might be writing to. This is something I haven’t paid that close of attention to but becomes obvious when I start to reflect on how I write and the way I try to say what I need to.

Mary AOD

The other day as I was doing research for a career paper I was ofcourse researching a pastor, even though I don't really want to be one its the closest thing I can think of as something I would like. As I was researching just the cold hard facts of each pastors job I ended up finding something more spiritually oriented and realized more fully that a ministers job includes so much more than visiting new church members and serving the poor but also having a heart for pray and prioritizing God first in all things and not money, popularity or anything else. I began reimaging what my future would look like according to what I was reminded of as my true values, which is an example of Political Imagination. What was interesting was that this page was written by a baptist minister. I normally do not pay to close of attention to baptist ministers since I often don't hear them preaching very interestingly spiritual things but this was a great example of how even though this minister was of a different group of people, He still had some very good things to say which he has acquired over the course of his years as a minister. It reminded me of the true benefits of diversity, and even though I don't fully know this as truth quite yet, I am learning more and more of the greatness of diversity, I only wish I knew more about it all. Sometimes I wish I knew everything. Thats an example of a dreamers imagination.

Essay 3 Reflection

When we first got this assignment and we first met together in our groups I was afraid that one person would end up doing all of the work. It was very difficult for us to come together and begin to write out an outline of what we were going to do, not to mention to get an understanding of the topic since we had not learned about it yet. However as time went on and the due date deadline drew nearer we forced ourselves it seems to get it together and and start putting together our essay. Ben began to head up discussion on the topics and Me and Becka got assigned the researching of the differences of states that made a central government unthinkable. We immediately began putting down main points and then went into the computer lab to write out a paragraph together which I found very helpful because it lent both of our brains to putting together a well written, thought out piece of writing. I really liked how in the end we were able as a group to bounce ideas off of eachother and even write and edit the essay simultaneously and I was really surprised to see how much I like it and how well it worked. The use of the contract only came into play in deciding that we as a group will make the decisions on what to do in the assignment. We only decided to do something when the majority of the group agreed on it. It worked out really well and the arguements were very few and not too serious.

We did a really good job in organizing our wiki and placing each source we found online on it. It was a great tool and the sources we found were very helpful and really helped me personally punch out some key points and arguements. Our group has come a long way in organizing the wiki and being able to see which sources are good and which aren't. Ramila especially has been great at helping out with that and finding superb sources.

Individually I feel like I learned and grew so much in this project while working with others in my group. I really learned how to work with someone else doing something that is normally for me an isolated process. Also I did a lot of the final editing of the essay and I am much more about to recognize run on sentences and I'm also getting better at recognizing words that aren't necessary. While I was working with Becca she pointed out that I do that a lot and I'm trying to work on that more. Also I had to cut down our paper from 7 pages to 5 which helped me to really decide which was the most needed information and cut out whatever was not absolutely necessary. I really enjoyed this essay, I feel like I learned a lot and am actually interested in what I'm learning. I feel like we as a group did a great job on this essay and I am really proud of it.

Conflict Journal

Today on the way to school with vince, justin, and ben I was driving from des moines to federal way. On the way up 216th Vince shouts out "Mcdonalds!" The problem was that it was already 8:15 and it would take us 15 minutes to get there. As I got up to Pac Highway i turned down the music and said, "I'll go to mcdonalds if someone buys me a egg mcmuffin." The person in the seat next to me swore at me and said forget that and instead of responding in anger I just kept my cool and drove the rest of the way to school, not giving the grump in the seat next to me more chances to release his anger on me.

Yesterday as I was driving- once again with vince, ben and justin- vince reached over to turn the heat down to halfway cold instead of in the middle between hot and cold and I reached over right after him and turned it back. He did the opposite once again and when I turned it back again he tried to role down his window but I was prepared and ready and held it up on my side so that he could not role it down. When this happened he decided to crack his door open while we were driving. When I saw this I decided to let up, I turned the heat to halfway cold and told him to shut the door. He obviously wanted it bad enough and I did not not want it bad enough, I think more or less I just wanted to win. Its the principle of having heat and not cold in the middle of winter, but realistically it does not make that big of a difference to have the cold on a little.

ANTI-FEDERALIST ESSAY

The ratification of the constitution in the 1780’s and 90’s faced many obstacles within the 13 colonies. States like New York saw the danger of such a document that would unite 13 sovereign states under one law making government with one presiding member resembling the English king. The fear of despotism along with the obvious differences between slave owning, tobacco selling southern states and fish selling northern states made many in New York wonder how these could ever come together as one country with one common focus. However, the biggest requirement of the average anti-federalist was that a Bill of Rights be made and placed in high importance in the government upholding the rights of the people. Without this, there would be no ratification of any constitution.

With the end of the American Revolution, a new government was established in the states and came together in what was called The Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, a legal document drawn up by the continental congress, governed the Confederation. After the war with the British, states acquired a large debt that began the wave of an enormous amount of taxes, which people paid in hard money. Shay’s Rebellion was started by a farmer who could not pay with hard money (The American Promise). Shay’s Rebellion was a good example of how the Confederation government is weak and ineffective as it was unable to squelch the uprising effectively. Many people started to think about a central government with all thirteen states together in one nation. To make the central government more effective they needed a constitution or a written document that showed the rights and liberties of people. However, before the constitution could be identified as a legitimate document, states had to ratify it.

But not all the states agreed, New York being one. As a state consisting mostly of anti-federalists, most people believed that without a bill of rights, they could not “enable the people to judge the legitimacy of acts of government” (Bill of Rights). Without such a document, the people could not determine whether or when government was abusing its power. Without a strong textual foundation, rights would eventually be lost (The American Promise). In the Agrippa XVII, James Winthrop writes, “a bill of rights is essential to the security of the persons and the property of people” (The Debate On The Constitution). Federalists did not initially take Anti-federalist objections seriously, but as the ratification campaign progressed, they began to rethink their position.

The constitutional union of states would be ruled by one political body. This however went directly against the uniqueness of each Sovereign State. Each state had varieties of people, economics as well as governmental structures. Though the constitution clearly dictates "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State... (U.S Constitution, Article IV, Section 1)" it was hard to see the States being held accountable for everything through the Federal Government, especially for New York. Mandating a national economy would be difficult, considering the variety of trade and economic structures that existed within the states. For instance, the southern states had a strong economic base generally exporting slave-grown tobacco to Britain. Those in local government were generally rich plantation owners that would or could not change their entire economic base just to appease northern states. Southern plantation owners feared that if the constitution was ratified, their way of making a living would begin to be frowned upon. The result of which would be that a general lack of understanding would cast their actions in an unfair light. Northern states such as Massachusetts had a strong fishing economy where fish were exported across the Atlantic. Unlike tobacco products, most fish exported from Massachusetts went to the West Indies. Therefore, New Englanders had difficulty relating and debating trading aspects with southern states like Virginia who mainly traded with England. These clear and present differences were in no ways hidden from the eyes of New Yorkers, and though Federalist ideals began to grow, a majority of New York's leading men were against ratification based on these economic differences.

Federalists looked at these economic differences differently. According to their constitution, the central government had an unhindered ability to regulate commerce (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). It was believed that checks and balances, a concept written into the very fabric of the Constitution, would negate any power tripping. It was thought therefore that this could only benefit the nation as a whole by uniting economic, political and relational viewpoints. In the senate, for example, each state took a part in deciding laws by sending their own representatives known as senators. However, anti-federalist’s believed that the extreme differences between a senator from Rhode Island and a senator from South Carolina would cause the two to not come to any agreement. Another difference was found in New Jerseys unique decision to remove the position of governor in their state.

It was inconceivable to many New Yorkers that a document could be passed joining together diverse, sovereign states. This was not because they were ignorant of common ground or of their omnipresent liberties, rather, for fear of a tyrannical central government. Article II of the Articles of Confederation gave each state its sovereignty. Each colony was given a charter signed by the King that in essence created a distant British society that was very much autonomous. The colony could act however it wished in carrying out the government, deciding what to do with land, the structure of society and foreign relations. Of course, the states are not guaranteed or free to all of these things under the Articles of Confederation, for as Article III dictates, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare”. A loose union of sovereign states had been in effect for much of the last decade. However with inescapable problems beginning to arise within the states, many proposed the answer in the form of a constitution.

Federalists argued that many problems, such as war debt, could all be resolved under an authoritative central government. Hoping that each state could pay off its debt was not enough, there needed to be accountability and a plan in place. Another hope was that a powerful government would do away with assumptions by the international community that the United States was weak; incapable of taking a place on the world stage. No longer would states be making their own laws to fit their specific needs, rather, all power to make and set laws into motion would be given to the legislative branch of the new Federal government (Constitution, Article I Section 1).

None of this argument belayed the fears of the Anti-federalist majority in New York. A central government would be too powerful, and would not represent the country well. The ability to maintain a military during peace time, the ability to override State policy and a position of executive power too greatly resembled the British Empire for New Yorkers to accept and ratify this document. Under the Constitution, the Legislative branch would write up laws that could either be enacted or rejected by the executive branch, similar in theory to Parliament and the King. This similarity only insinuated to New Yorkers that the very same pitfalls and despotism that resulted in England’s government setup would also result from this very same proposed government. The government’s power gave them the ability to enforce laws contrary to the states current laws in their own constitutions (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). This was in effect forcing the residents of that state to comply with what the heads of the government thought right and good for them. Even if this went directly against the residents wants and desires. This is despotism in its truest form.

The lack of a bill of rights, inherent differences between the states and the amount of power given to the federal government were pivotal issues that initially solidified New York as an Anti-federalist state. The fear of despotism and the denial of the liberties of every man, woman and child was very real. The need for a bill of rights could not be bypassed. James Winthrop spoke truth when he described the Bill of Rights as “essential to the security of persons” and their property and it was not for our founding fathers to say otherwise. The Anti-federalist mentality that existed within the majority of New Yorkers pointed out that the differences between them and a southern tobacco planter were far too great to be ignored. Tobacco sent to England from the south and fish sent to the West Indies from the north caused a gap in the common ground of the states. New Jersey’s removal of a governor only bolsters this fact. Based on the Articles of Confederation, it was not right to subject the sovereign states to a higher political power. Therefore, the Constitution had no place attempting to conform multiple diverse populations to one order, nor was there any reason to limit the rights of a free people.

Bibliography

U.S Constitution and Articles of Confederation

Mount, Steve. "The U.S. Constitution Online." The U.S. Constitution Online. 1 Oct. 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 .

Debate On The Adoption of The Consitution

"THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." The Constitution Society. The Constitution Society. 13 Nov. 2007 .

New York Sentiments On Constitution

Thorpe, Francis N. "The Constitutional History of the United States." Google. 1901.
13 Nov. 2007. Chicago Callahgan & Company

Federalism and Shared Powers

FISHER, LOUIS. "Federalism and Shared Powers." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Eds. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. 1010-1013.
6 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

Bill of Rights

Rakove, Jack. "Bill of Rights in U.S. Constitution." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 454-457. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 25 Nov. 2007

Antifederalists

Flaherty, Martin S. "Antifederalists." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 200-202. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

The American Promise

The American Promise, by James L. Roark, Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, Susan M. Hartmann, 2005

Federalists and Anti-FederalistsChin, Jonathan, and Alan Stern. "Federalists and Anti-Federalists." Federalists and Anti-Federalists. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007 .

The Debate On The Constitution

The Debate on the Constitution Edited by Bernard Bailyn 1993 by Literary Classics of the U.S, Inc.,New York, N.Y. history Society of Wisconsin: copyright1977 by The University Press. Reprinted by permission.

Personal Responses

Bekka

Anti federalists did not want to ratify the constitution because they were fearful of the government. They did not want a corrupt government that would take advantage of the citizens. I understand why many people were worried about not having a bill of rights. They wanted freedom and did not want their rights taken away. When my parents tell me how to speak, or tell me I am not allowed to do an activity, I can get irritated. I don’t like when my parents attempt to take away some of my rights, so I definitely would not like the government taking away my rights.

I believe I would position myself as a federalist mostly because don’t know what life would be like if the constitution was not ratified. I’ve lived my whole life in the time period which American citizens live under obligation to the constitution. I like the constitution as it is now because I enjoy having rights such as freedom of speech and religion. America has a diverse body of people who have different beliefs and these rights protect all citizens no matter what they believe. I also like the idea of the checks and balance system. This allows elected citizens from all fifty states to play a role in the government by being in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It stops the president from over taxing citizens and becoming corrupt. Originally the anti federalists did not like the idea of a check and balance system because the thought that it might fail. They were ignorant to the fact that this would stop the president from taking advantage of the citizens. This system of checks and balances has worked for about two hundred years. In my life time I have not seen the president become corrupt due to this system.

Ian

Many American’s in the late 1700’s had to struggle with whether or not they would ratify a constitution that brought all 13 sovereign states under one government. Many heard this phrase and immediately negative thoughts of the oppressive English king entered their minds and almost immediately they rejected the idea. Their rejection however was based on fear and ignorance. Those who rejected this idea, known as anti-federalists, did not have much of an understanding about the new proposed government. They did not think of the fact that this government was proposed by a few of the most radical men who were most hostile towards the British King and hated his rule even more than they did. These Anti-Federalists believed that too much power was given to the executive branch of the government to which the president belonged. However the government that these radicals proposed included representatives from each state so that each would have a say. It composed a senate and a house, two groups of representatives from each state which provided checks and balances within this newfound government. This insured that no one group of people could enforce their will upon another. Another fact that these anti-federalists did not consider is the outcome of thirteen sovereign states being allowed to co-inhabit one body of land. They believed that peace and prosperity could best be attained by leaving the states to govern themselves. They failed to think about the wars and the oppression caused by more powerful states preying on less powerful states. This would be horrendous and was all too likely. Upon consideration of all these facts, I am convinced that if I were to live then, I would be a constitution accepting Federalist and not an Anti-Federalist.

Ramila

In early beginning of free America , many great changes took place and one of the significant changes is ratification of the constitution. Many struggles were to ratify the constitution, since the states consisted of Anti-federalists and Federalist. Anti-federalist are people who are against the ratification of constitution, and Federalists are people who are for the constitution. If I were a person that lived in this all confusion about the constitution, I probably would be a Federalist.

If anyone would ask me “why?” I would answer from the modern point of view because no one at that time knew exactly what is going to happen next, “I choose the Federalist way because I like the idea of all thirteen states together as one nation, this way states together have more power against anyone. Besides, the central government is better-organized then confederate government in taxation etc. “Most likely Anti-federalist would ague against my views by saying that states should not join together because states, “..already on sure economic footing, that could afford to remain independent…” (American Promise). In addition, Anti-federalists feared the people would loose their liberties. Anti-federalists should have looked better on the plan of government because it is clearly explaining people will have all rights with the new constitution. But, now days we cannot judge what happen in the history because we know the history from the second hand experience.

Ben Fader

Not only to buck the trend that seems so present, but having also been immersed in the anti-federalist viewpoint, it is safe to say that I would indeed stand against the ratification of the Constitution. Not that I'm against military spending or increased security, rather, it is clear to me that each state was so unique that immediately subjecting states to the goals of the most powerful individuals was in my opinion wrong. Clearly the Articles needed revision, but that's it. Certain powers should or could have been given to a limited central government, and perhaps this body could have handled things that all states were in need of or agreed upon; but having the variety of goals and needs placed under a powerful federal government only leads to concern. Does anyone else perhaps feel that their voice is not being heard? Well I do, and much of it is the extent of the bureaucracy and red tape necessary for those in power to maintain and exercise that power. If States had more control, it would be that much easier to communicate on a more direct level and my vote would mean more with the absence of the electoral college. All in all, I currently am very dissatisfied with the way things work, and though I love this country, I can see many advantages to a revised union without a powerful federal government. I would be an anti-federalist, through and through.