1) Group Interaction
The interaction between my group was decent. It wasn't spectacular but it was what I expected. I tried to prepare myself for the worst, so at its worst, at least I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't think all four of us were ever interacting with each other, except for when we were in class. I knew this group essay would be rocky from the beginning based off the last essay we did, and how hard it was just for us to agree on the outline. Myself and Junalyn basically created the outline, then each person was able to choose which key point they wanted to write about. That was the best and most non-stressful part of the essay for my group, in my opinion. Each person wrote their section without needing assistance from other group members. I was very satisfied that this was done on time. When all the components were put together I felt, and still feel that it didn't flow the way it should of. On the topic of corrections, I feel that we should have all contributed on the corrections so everyone's ideas would be incorporated and it would help create a unison of all our voices. But for the most part, we all got along and there weren't that many conflicts.
2) Use of Contract
I don't feel that the guidelines of the contract were correctly followed. There were days where group members wouldn't be present and work couldn't effectively be done because we needed their input on the decision. Looking back now, I feel the contract needs to be extremely revised. We were a little too lenient with some of the rules, and in the end, those hindered the outcome of the essay.
3) Use of Wiki
The wiki was pretty well used. We created new pages for this essay, so everyone in the group could have their information in the same place. I think everyone contributed a little to the wiki and it was very useful in the end to find information because it was all there.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution
Vince Coppola
Junalyn Dela Cruz
Sioned Fearon and
Cymone Lee-Johnson
11/27/07
Ratification of Constitution Essay
Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution
Federalism is the greatest thing that ever happened to this country! Sure some may say this, but it is a huge overstatement. The truth is, anti-federalism held a much safer outcome for the maintenance of sovereignty in each individual state as opposed to the ideology of the federalists.
Anti-federalists mainly populated the state of Rhode Island at the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. A significant reason they were opposed to the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny many of the rights and powers of individual states. Reasons behind this strong disapproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island, which contained the rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more efficient. There was also a great deal of concern about the Land Ordinance of 1785, where each state boundary extended well beyond the boundaries originally assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay off the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been paid off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.
How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalist Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian part, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason in refusing to their ‘'urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention was that Rhode Island is concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island was content with the liberty and the independence based on their stated constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, or the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Rhode Island was satisfied of their organization of their political group, Country Party. The Country Party was known for issuing paper currency to pay off Revolutionary War debts (Doherty 96). Rhode Island believed that running democracy in their state government would be more sufficient than running democracy as one whole nation. In Shay’s Rebellion, the confederation wanted to tax every state for the debts but with democracy, the right for their voice, people oppressed against them. Affected by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, Rhode Island knew that it's better for their government to control their state than having all states to be controlled by the central government (Doherty 100). Anti-federalists understand that the federalists proposed republicanism, which was to give voice to the people through the senators. Though Rhode Island’s concern was giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would run under a "king."
An issue that played a major role in Rhode Island being an anti-federalist state was the probable outcome that a central government would overpower the individual states. Rhode Island had just fought passionately to steer away from a monarchical rule, and was now being pressured to go back in that direction. Plenty of colonies having claims to land westward didn’t help Rhode Island become in favor of the Constitution any faster. Rhode Island was one of the few colonies that didn’t have any land claims. Other colonies having land claims, with the expectations of expanding, in the event of a central government, would have superiority. Other colonies, such as Virginia, who had land claims from Kentucky to Wisconsin, would easily overpower such a small colony as Rhode Island in a central government. Those fortunate colonies that held more land had the advantage over others that didn’t, such as economically and military wise. Loss of independence was greatly feared, thus explains why no delegates were sent to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Rhode Island was perfectly content with the previous laws set forth, which enabled them to have more freedom than most other colonies. A central government would take away so many of the advantages they have, in order to make them equal with every other colony. The residents of Rhode Island worked too hard to gain their independence and liberties, and were too grateful to risk that for an unsure idea.
Since Rhode Island was the last and final state to ratify the Constitution, it must have been severely anti-federalist. One of the primary reasons why the majority of Rhode Island chose not to be governed by a central government was because of the issue of taxation. Unlike the federalists, who were okay with the idea of a broader government taxing at their will, the anti-federalists in Rhode Island feared that there would also be horrible side effects of a more powerful government. The officials feared that since the citizens would have to pay taxes to both the state and the federal government, they would become too burdened with all of the costs. If a citizen became too burdened by taxes, they could simply refuse to pay any taxes. The anti-federalists believed that in this situation, the federal government would simply alleviate the state taxes and only collect their own taxes from citizens. Located in a primary document by Brutus, a writer of one of the numerous anti-federalists letters, he offers his view very plainly, “Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected. — The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by the permission of the Congress.” The federalists in Rhode Island must have seen this sort of thinking as a crazy tangent. They thought that this sort of undermining would never happen, but despite their beliefs, the issue of taxation remained one of the most important and pressing topics to the anti-federalists in Rhode Island.
For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.
Individual Responses
Vince: For me to choose a side of the federalism vs. anti-federalism debate, I would simply weigh the historical reasons for both alongside the present information of how everything worked out. Essentially, America today WORKS. Our country has a thriving economy and a very strong military. I believe that the federalists had the best idea with creating a sturdy union between all of the states. The anti-federalists had some legitimate concerns about taxation and their security as states, but ultimately, federalism clearly prevailed. If one were to imagine the current situation of our states if the constitution hadn’t been ratified, it would probably be filled with much internal
conflict and civil wars. Therefore, federalism held the best possible outcome for America.
Junalyn: The debate between the federalists and anti-federalist were rickety because some individual states took longer in ratifying the Constitution. I agree with the individual states that took their time in ratifying the Constitution. The states were concerned about their rights and taxation. They wanted to take care of their war debts before accepting the Constitution. Concerned about the state rights, the Congress incorporated most of the states’ rights into the Bill of Rights, which was then used in the Constitution. This helped the anti-federalists’ satisfaction into rectifying the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted to take care of their state governments before going into a federal government.
Sioned: If there was to be something like the constitutional debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller individual governments with their own different laws. Anti-federalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Cymone: To choose to be a federalist or anti-federalist is not something easily done. They both had key points, and depending on how they were effectively integrated, would determine the status and success of America today. I am personally torn between the two. I agree with the federalists that there should be a central government. In order for America to prosper, there needs to be some sort of unification amongst all the states. A central government aids states in the fact that the individual states won’t have to feel that they have to deal with their issues on there own and will have support from other states. I agree with the anti-federalists that the individual states come before the central government. I personally would deal with the concerns of my own state before national concerns because it is closer to home. While some can easily decide between the two, I can be satisfied with agreeing on certain ideas from each party.
Sources
1.Doherty, Craig A., and Katherine M. Doherty. Rhode Island. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005.
2.Moehn, Heather. The U.S. Constitution: a Primary Source Investigation Into the Fundamental Law of the United States. 1st ed. New York: The Rosen Group, Inc., 2003.
3.Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
4.http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhode-Island-History.html
5.http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976634/97p0326q/2?frame=noframe&userID=a89c4f45@highline.edu/01c0a848740050157f7&dpi=3&config=jstor
6.http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html
Junalyn Dela Cruz
Sioned Fearon and
Cymone Lee-Johnson
11/27/07
Ratification of Constitution Essay
Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution
Federalism is the greatest thing that ever happened to this country! Sure some may say this, but it is a huge overstatement. The truth is, anti-federalism held a much safer outcome for the maintenance of sovereignty in each individual state as opposed to the ideology of the federalists.
Anti-federalists mainly populated the state of Rhode Island at the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. A significant reason they were opposed to the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny many of the rights and powers of individual states. Reasons behind this strong disapproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island, which contained the rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more efficient. There was also a great deal of concern about the Land Ordinance of 1785, where each state boundary extended well beyond the boundaries originally assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay off the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been paid off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.
How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalist Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian part, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason in refusing to their ‘'urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention was that Rhode Island is concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island was content with the liberty and the independence based on their stated constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, or the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Rhode Island was satisfied of their organization of their political group, Country Party. The Country Party was known for issuing paper currency to pay off Revolutionary War debts (Doherty 96). Rhode Island believed that running democracy in their state government would be more sufficient than running democracy as one whole nation. In Shay’s Rebellion, the confederation wanted to tax every state for the debts but with democracy, the right for their voice, people oppressed against them. Affected by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, Rhode Island knew that it's better for their government to control their state than having all states to be controlled by the central government (Doherty 100). Anti-federalists understand that the federalists proposed republicanism, which was to give voice to the people through the senators. Though Rhode Island’s concern was giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would run under a "king."
An issue that played a major role in Rhode Island being an anti-federalist state was the probable outcome that a central government would overpower the individual states. Rhode Island had just fought passionately to steer away from a monarchical rule, and was now being pressured to go back in that direction. Plenty of colonies having claims to land westward didn’t help Rhode Island become in favor of the Constitution any faster. Rhode Island was one of the few colonies that didn’t have any land claims. Other colonies having land claims, with the expectations of expanding, in the event of a central government, would have superiority. Other colonies, such as Virginia, who had land claims from Kentucky to Wisconsin, would easily overpower such a small colony as Rhode Island in a central government. Those fortunate colonies that held more land had the advantage over others that didn’t, such as economically and military wise. Loss of independence was greatly feared, thus explains why no delegates were sent to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Rhode Island was perfectly content with the previous laws set forth, which enabled them to have more freedom than most other colonies. A central government would take away so many of the advantages they have, in order to make them equal with every other colony. The residents of Rhode Island worked too hard to gain their independence and liberties, and were too grateful to risk that for an unsure idea.
Since Rhode Island was the last and final state to ratify the Constitution, it must have been severely anti-federalist. One of the primary reasons why the majority of Rhode Island chose not to be governed by a central government was because of the issue of taxation. Unlike the federalists, who were okay with the idea of a broader government taxing at their will, the anti-federalists in Rhode Island feared that there would also be horrible side effects of a more powerful government. The officials feared that since the citizens would have to pay taxes to both the state and the federal government, they would become too burdened with all of the costs. If a citizen became too burdened by taxes, they could simply refuse to pay any taxes. The anti-federalists believed that in this situation, the federal government would simply alleviate the state taxes and only collect their own taxes from citizens. Located in a primary document by Brutus, a writer of one of the numerous anti-federalists letters, he offers his view very plainly, “Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected. — The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by the permission of the Congress.” The federalists in Rhode Island must have seen this sort of thinking as a crazy tangent. They thought that this sort of undermining would never happen, but despite their beliefs, the issue of taxation remained one of the most important and pressing topics to the anti-federalists in Rhode Island.
For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.
Individual Responses
Vince: For me to choose a side of the federalism vs. anti-federalism debate, I would simply weigh the historical reasons for both alongside the present information of how everything worked out. Essentially, America today WORKS. Our country has a thriving economy and a very strong military. I believe that the federalists had the best idea with creating a sturdy union between all of the states. The anti-federalists had some legitimate concerns about taxation and their security as states, but ultimately, federalism clearly prevailed. If one were to imagine the current situation of our states if the constitution hadn’t been ratified, it would probably be filled with much internal
conflict and civil wars. Therefore, federalism held the best possible outcome for America.
Junalyn: The debate between the federalists and anti-federalist were rickety because some individual states took longer in ratifying the Constitution. I agree with the individual states that took their time in ratifying the Constitution. The states were concerned about their rights and taxation. They wanted to take care of their war debts before accepting the Constitution. Concerned about the state rights, the Congress incorporated most of the states’ rights into the Bill of Rights, which was then used in the Constitution. This helped the anti-federalists’ satisfaction into rectifying the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted to take care of their state governments before going into a federal government.
Sioned: If there was to be something like the constitutional debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller individual governments with their own different laws. Anti-federalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Cymone: To choose to be a federalist or anti-federalist is not something easily done. They both had key points, and depending on how they were effectively integrated, would determine the status and success of America today. I am personally torn between the two. I agree with the federalists that there should be a central government. In order for America to prosper, there needs to be some sort of unification amongst all the states. A central government aids states in the fact that the individual states won’t have to feel that they have to deal with their issues on there own and will have support from other states. I agree with the anti-federalists that the individual states come before the central government. I personally would deal with the concerns of my own state before national concerns because it is closer to home. While some can easily decide between the two, I can be satisfied with agreeing on certain ideas from each party.
Sources
1.Doherty, Craig A., and Katherine M. Doherty. Rhode Island. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005.
2.Moehn, Heather. The U.S. Constitution: a Primary Source Investigation Into the Fundamental Law of the United States. 1st ed. New York: The Rosen Group, Inc., 2003.
3.Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
4.http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhode-Island-History.html
5.http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976634/97p0326q/2?frame=noframe&userID=a89c4f45@highline.edu/01c0a848740050157f7&dpi=3&config=jstor
6.http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Essay #2 Reflection
1) My process improved a little from essay #1 to essay #2. I still couldn't really find motivation to do it and put my best effort into it. I only finished, or at least did my part because I thought how my partner probably cared about his grade and it wouldn't be fair for me to leave him out there with nothing. I still feel like I could have managed my time better. However with work needing to be done over the weekend, and me working all weekend, it makes it hard for me. But considering how much I've worked this weekend, I'm proud of myself that I even finished my part of the assignment. I was extremely stressed and could of easily said forget it, but I stuck through it.
2) I have no clue how my process meshed with my partners because I don't know what his process was. From the outside it probably looked like we didn't have any communication conflicts, but they were there. We came up with the concept that we would dress up and take pictures of certain events then blog about them with each of us expressing our extreme biases. About a day or two later my partner decided it would be better for us to photoshop our faces onto pictures of our characters, and I agreed, eventhough I still think the first idea is more creative. We expressed our plan and started researching information. Eventhough I was researching for many days, I still couldn't and didn't find any information that was useful to me. On Thursday, four days before the project was due, we took the pictures in class and my partner edited them. After that he pretty much said you're on your own. During the weekend when I had time to work on the project I was confused about what exactly I had to do so I sent my partner a message asking what exactly he wanted of me. He stated that I had to do 3 blogs, one on each event, and he would then comment on them. I felt and still feel that him photoshopping 3 pictures isn't equivalent to me writing 3 blogs, but I still did it. When I sent him the URL of the blog in an email, I saw that he sent me a message saying he didn't know what was going on with me and he made 2 blogs and he wanted me to make 1 and we would have to comment back and forth on them, eventhough he didn't even leave a URL for me to do this on. I felt like what I did was a waste of time, but at least I completed what I said I would do. We should have better planned and communicated. I don't feel like he can use the excuse that I didn't post them until late because we've already discussed that I work on the weekends, and if he wasn't listening when this was discussed, then that's on him. So overall, there really wasn't any communication between the two of us. However, I will take part responsibility for that because communication is a 2-way thing. Now I can't quite give my partner a grade because I haven't seen any work he's done, so I don't quite know how that works out.
3) I don't think our conflict was handled at all. Sure he went to someone else and vented about the whole deal, but I don't feel that is resolving the issue. If we were acting like mature adults, we would sit down together and talk about it, not bring other people into it because it only concerns us. We still have to resolve that whole situation. If I had to give myself a grade, it would be a passing grade because I incorporated the facts with the creative bias towards patriotism, which developed my character. I think I could have put more effort into this project, but I don't think it was that horrible to where it was not passing. On my partners behalf, I think he did a great job on the photoshopping of the pictures. My personal favorite was the Boston Tea Party picture. But on content wise, I would give him a no pass/low pass because I haven't seen any of his ideas, but they seemed like they would be benefitial.
2) I have no clue how my process meshed with my partners because I don't know what his process was. From the outside it probably looked like we didn't have any communication conflicts, but they were there. We came up with the concept that we would dress up and take pictures of certain events then blog about them with each of us expressing our extreme biases. About a day or two later my partner decided it would be better for us to photoshop our faces onto pictures of our characters, and I agreed, eventhough I still think the first idea is more creative. We expressed our plan and started researching information. Eventhough I was researching for many days, I still couldn't and didn't find any information that was useful to me. On Thursday, four days before the project was due, we took the pictures in class and my partner edited them. After that he pretty much said you're on your own. During the weekend when I had time to work on the project I was confused about what exactly I had to do so I sent my partner a message asking what exactly he wanted of me. He stated that I had to do 3 blogs, one on each event, and he would then comment on them. I felt and still feel that him photoshopping 3 pictures isn't equivalent to me writing 3 blogs, but I still did it. When I sent him the URL of the blog in an email, I saw that he sent me a message saying he didn't know what was going on with me and he made 2 blogs and he wanted me to make 1 and we would have to comment back and forth on them, eventhough he didn't even leave a URL for me to do this on. I felt like what I did was a waste of time, but at least I completed what I said I would do. We should have better planned and communicated. I don't feel like he can use the excuse that I didn't post them until late because we've already discussed that I work on the weekends, and if he wasn't listening when this was discussed, then that's on him. So overall, there really wasn't any communication between the two of us. However, I will take part responsibility for that because communication is a 2-way thing. Now I can't quite give my partner a grade because I haven't seen any work he's done, so I don't quite know how that works out.
3) I don't think our conflict was handled at all. Sure he went to someone else and vented about the whole deal, but I don't feel that is resolving the issue. If we were acting like mature adults, we would sit down together and talk about it, not bring other people into it because it only concerns us. We still have to resolve that whole situation. If I had to give myself a grade, it would be a passing grade because I incorporated the facts with the creative bias towards patriotism, which developed my character. I think I could have put more effort into this project, but I don't think it was that horrible to where it was not passing. On my partners behalf, I think he did a great job on the photoshopping of the pictures. My personal favorite was the Boston Tea Party picture. But on content wise, I would give him a no pass/low pass because I haven't seen any of his ideas, but they seemed like they would be benefitial.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)