The Founding Debate: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

by | Aug 13, 2024 | humanities

Chapter two covers the founding of the United States, which includes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. These documents are still relevant to understanding American government today. The Articles of Confederation, while no longer a governing document, provides a historic background to the division and sometimes still conflicting interests of the State and National governments. As you read chapter two, you should read these three important documents (Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution). The documents are all located in the textbook. After reading the documents answer the following questions in your essay.

Federalist or Anti-Federalists – Please watch the video Empire of Reason

(https://vimeo.com/231093077), as you are watching evaluate the arguments for and against the Constitution and analyze how those arguments from 200 years ago apply to the United States today.

()

()

1 Anti-Federalists vs. the Federalists Briefly define the competing interests of the federalists and anti-federalists.

2 Identify and one argument of from each side stated in the video and explain the importance of this concern then and now. Please be specific in your identifications and applications.

3 Which position (federalits or anti-federalist) do you find more persuasive and why?

4 What did the United States gain from this debate and what questions have remained?

Your response must be at least 300 words. List all web resources and referenced materials that were used. You must use the APA citation style format in listing references used and in parenthetical citations.

Sample solution

Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell. 

In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.


This question has been answered

God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.

Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.

To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.

 

References

Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.

Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.

Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.

Sample Answer

Sample Answer

 

The Founding Debate: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The formation of the United States government was marked by a significant ideological clash between two factions: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists championed a strong centralized government as outlined in the Constitution, advocating for a system that could effectively manage the diverse interests of the growing nation. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists were concerned that such centralization would undermine state sovereignty and individual liberties, fearing that a powerful federal government could lead to tyranny (Empire of Reason, 2017).

One crucial argument presented by the Federalists, as highlighted in the video “Empire of Reason,” is the need for a strong national defense. The Federalists contended that a unified government would be better equipped to protect the nation from external threats and maintain order within. This concern remains pertinent today, as contemporary issues surrounding national security and defense spending continue to dominate political discourse. The balance between adequate defense and civil liberties is a recurring theme in modern American politics, reflecting the very tension that existed at the nation’s founding.

On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists raised significant objections regarding the absence of a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution. They argued that without explicit protections for individual freedoms, citizens would be vulnerable to governmental overreach. This argument resonates strongly today, as ongoing debates about privacy rights, freedom of speech, and governmental surveillance underline the importance of safeguarding individual liberties against potential abuses of power. The subsequent adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791 was a direct response to these fears and remains a cornerstone of American democracy.

In evaluating both positions, I find the Anti-Federalist perspective more persuasive. Their emphasis on safeguarding individual freedoms speaks to the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded. The propensity for governmental overreach is a legitimate concern that continues to challenge the balance of power between federal and state authorities.

Ultimately, the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists provided foundational lessons for American governance. The United States gained a Constitution designed to balance power while protecting individual rights, but questions about the appropriate scope of government versus individual freedoms persist. These discussions are essential to understanding contemporary governance and continue to shape American political life.

References

Empire of Reason. (2017). [Video]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/231093077

 

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer