Question

Choose whether to argue as a Federalist or as an Anti-Federalist. Review the lesson to make sure you understand their main points.
Using quotes from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, write an opinion article for a newspaper, or create a speech podcast to convince people in your state to agree with your position. Include the following in your speech or article:

Answer 1

introductory paragraph that clearly states your position as a Federalist or Anti-Federalist
at least two paragraphs describing differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist points of view. Use at least two quotes from each of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

Answer 2

at least one paragraph to explain why you disagree with the opposing stance. For example, if you have chosen to argue as a Federalist, you will explain why you disagree with the Anti-Federalist position, using quotes from the documents to support your argument.
strong concluding paragraph that summarizes your argument and encourage others to support you
Your argument should be created in a formal style. One important element of formal writing is using third person point-of-view. The sentence "I believe that the Federalist's structure of government" is written from first person point-of-view because it uses the pronoun "I." The sentence "The Federalist's structure of government" is written from third person point-of-view. In formal writing, use third person point-of-view. While you won't really present your work to the Second Continental Congress, you should prepare your argument as if you will be sharing it with a group of very important members of Congress.
Edit your work before submitting. Be sure your article or speech has an introduction, a separate paragraph for each point you make, and a strong conclusion. If you choose to make a podcast, be sure you are in character when you perform your speech.

Answer 3

i think i agree with Anti-Federalist because they believe they need the bill of rights while the Federalist believe its unnecessary and dangerous

Answer 4

The Bill of right has helped us out tremendously i say this because if we didnt have the bill of rights we wouldnt have the amendments such as - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press, or - The Right to Bear Arms. With out these amendments we would have a really bad economy and life would be so much different

Answer 5

Capitalization, punctuation, and grammar.

Answer 6

i know elsha im just adding info rn then i need help putting it together i cant think of how to put this into a newspaper article

Answer 7

Just give your opinion and add quotes you agree with and why you agree with them.

Answer 8

“Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power.“

Answer 9

“As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety.“

Answer 10

I agree with Anti-Federalist because they believe the bill of rights is important while the Federalist believe its unnecessary and dangerous. The Bill of right has helped us out tremendously. I say this because if we didn't have the bill of rights we wouldn't have the amendments. If we didn't have the amendments such as - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press, or - The Right to Bear Arms. With out these amendments we would have a really bad economy and life would be so much different.

Answer 11

^introduction paragraph?
now we need to do at least two paragraphs describing differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist points of view.

Answer 12

Huh, the Federalists wanted the Bull of Rights, not Anti

Answer 13

Bull.

Answer 14

Autocorrect

Answer 15

Lmao it strikes again

Answer 16

What source said anti feds wanted the bill of rights?

Answer 17

From my lesson

Answer 18

^^^ see the screen shot

Answer 19

My friend and fellow Federalist Alexander Hamilton wrote, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” This was in the Federalist Paper No. 84. We limited the government so that it could not impose on people’s rights. Mr. Hamilton points out that this makes a bill of rights unnecessary.

Answer 20

^word for word of what my lesson said

Answer 21

Patrick Henry] It could be, I will grant you, but it needs more editing to protect our future liberties.

[James Madison] Perhaps that is an area where we could compromise. I could lead a committee to draft this bill of rights… I appreciate our debate today, Mr. Henry.

[Patrick Henry] It was good speaking with you, Mr. Madison. Your committee will soon receive suggestions for amendments from all over the states.

^also word for word in lesson

Answer 22

@Shadow see

Answer 23

Just checked, they are right. I didn’t know the information directly so I was basing my stance off of some of their other positions but I see how it works now.

Answer 24

I tried sending that 10min ago but this college campus internet and glitchy Puffin phone browser just didn’t want to work.

Answer 25

so what i wrote for the introduction would be correct

Answer 26

I agree with Anti-Federalist because they believe the bill of rights is important while the Federalist believe its unnecessary and dangerous. The Bill of right has helped us out tremendously. I say this because if we didn't have the bill of rights we wouldn't have the amendments. If we didn't have the amendments such as - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press, or - The Right to Bear Arms. With out these amendments we would have a really bad economy and life would be so much different.

Answer 27

^introduction

Answer 28

Well the Federalist weren’t necessarily against the freedoms and rights established within the Bill of Right. It was more about letting the states do what they want instead of having the federal government play Dad and say they all need to abide by them (supremacy clause).

The Federalists are the group I agree with most, but this idea is foolish. Whilst it’s appropriate in some situations to leave things to the state, for freedoms such as this, I would agree with the Anti-Federalists that they needed to be secured at the federal level first.

Answer 29

Make sure to properly capitalize Bill of Rights.

Answer 30

Freedom and Religion, as well as the various other freedoms/rights do not need to be capitalized.

Answer 31

A bad economy is a lengthy argument to make. Whilst you’re not wrong, you should go for something simpler. Let’s break down the second point you made, which is that life would be bad.

Religion: you wouldn’t be able to practice your religion in public
Speech: censorship in real life, in public, as well as online (no more expressing controversial opinions on Twitter/Instagram).
Assembly/Petition: you can no longer get together and protest the government when they are doing something bad
Press: the media and news can no longer freely report on whatever they want

Those are the five freedoms established within the First Amendment and what would happen if they weren’t there.

Answer 32

soooooo.........
I agree with Anti-Federalist because they believe the bill of rights is important while the Federalist believed its unnecessary and dangerous. As time passed Federalist decided to compromise and create the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Right has helped us out tremendously. I say this because if we didn't have the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have the amendments. If we didn't have the amendments such as - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press, or - The Right to Bear Arms. With out these amendments we would have a really bad economy and life would be so much different. If Anti-Federalist and Federalist didn't compromise History as we know it would be different.

Answer 33

^does that sound better

Answer 34

Just trying to give you a better understanding of what life would be like without the Bill of Rights so you can provide a better description than just ‘a bad life.’

Answer 35

ok

Answer 36

Read what I wrote and change accordingly. And remember to fix the capitalization. My class is starting, good luck.

Answer 37

I agree with Anti-Federalist because they believe the bill of rights is important while the Federalist believed it’s unnecessary and dangerous. As time passed Federalist decided to compromise and create the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Right has helped us out tremendously. I say this because if we didn't have the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have the amendments. If we didn't have the amendments such as - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press, or - The Right to Bear Arms. Without these amendments our economy would crumble and life would be so much different. If Anti-Federalist and Federalist didn't compromise History as we know it would be corrupted.

Answer 38

i got capitals punctuation now i have to move on to at least two paragraphs describing differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist points of view. Use at least two quotes from each of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

Answer 39

Elsa anyway you can help me out or are you bad at history

Answer 40

I can't help myself with history. e.e

Answer 41

T~T

Answer 42

The difference between Federalist and Anti-Federalist is that Federalist believed that the constitution was enough to protect individual rights. While Anti-Federalist believed that the constitution was not enough to protect individual’s rights that are why they wanted to create the Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalist believed “Having the rights in writing gives stronger protection for future generations.” While Federalist disagreed and said “We limited the government so that it could not impose on people’s rights. Mr. Hamilton points out that this makes a bill of rights unnecessary.”

Answer 43

@Elsa213

Answer 44

Ye?

Answer 45

Hold on one second please

Answer 46

Okiee

Answer 47

Can you read this to see it it sounds good PREASE :3

Answer 48

I agree with Anti-Federalist because they believe the bill of rights is important while the Federalist believed it’s unnecessary and dangerous. As time passed Federalist decided to compromise and create the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Right has helped us out tremendously. I say this because if we didn't have the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have the amendments. If we didn't have the amendments such as - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press, or - The Right to Bear Arms. Without these amendments our economy would crumble and life would be so much different. If Anti-Federalist and Federalist didn't compromise History as we know it would be corrupted.

The difference between Federalist and Anti-Federalist is that Federalist believed that the constitution was enough to protect individual rights. While Anti-Federalist believed that the constitution was not enough to protect individual’s rights that are why they wanted to create the Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalist believed “Having the rights in writing gives stronger protection for future generations.” While Federalist disagreed and said “We limited the government so that it could not impose on people’s rights. Mr. Hamilton points out that this makes a bill of rights unnecessary.”
Another difference between Federalist and Anti-Federalist is that Federalist Favor the Constitution. While Anti-Federalist Favor the Articles of Confederation. Federalist Favor the Constitution more than the Articles of Confederation because they felt the constitution limited the power held by the government not the citizens. While Anti-Federalist Favored the Articles of Confederation because they believed the constitution would lead to a dangerously powerful national government. Richard Henry Believed if the new constitution was going to work “the President and Senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances, (as making all kinds of treaties, which are to be the laws of the land,) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They, jointly, appoint all officers, civil and military; and they (the Senate) try all impeachments, either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves.“ Saying this he made it clear the government shouldn’t hold all the power that it should be split up.

Answer 49

im in a big hurry and i know you read pretty fast

Answer 50

I agree with Anti-Federalist because they believe the Bill of Rights is important while the Federalist believed it’s unnecessary and dangerous. As time passed Federalist decided to compromise and create the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Right has helped us out tremendously. I say this because if we didn't have the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have the amendments. If we didn't have the amendments such as - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press, or - The Right to Bear Arms. Without these amendments our economy would crumble and life would be so much different. If Anti-Federalist and Federalist didn't compromise History as we know it would be corrupted.

The difference between Federalist and Anti-Federalist is that Federalist believed that the constitution was enough to protect individual rights. While Anti-Federalist believed that the constitution was not enough to protect individual’s rights that are why they wanted to create the Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalist believed “Having the rights in writing gives stronger protection for future generations.” While Federalist disagreed and said “We limited the government so that it could not impose on people’s rights. Mr. Hamilton points out that this makes a bill of rights unnecessary.”
Another difference between Federalist and Anti-Federalist is that Federalist Favor the Constitution. While Anti-Federalist Favor the Articles of Confederation. Federalist Favor the Constitution more than the Articles of Confederation because they felt the Constitution limited the power held by the government not the citizens. While Anti-Federalist Favored the Articles of Confederation because they believed the Constitution would lead to a dangerously powerful national government. Richard Henry Believed if the new Constitution was going to work “the President and Senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances, (as making all kinds of treaties, which are to be the laws of the land,) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They, jointly, appoint all officers, civil and military; and they (the Senate) try all impeachments, either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves.“ Saying this he made it clear the government shouldn’t hold all the power that it should be split up.

Answer 51

Capitalized

Answer 52

i think i did pretty well with out like any help and i think my grammar punctuation and capitalization is correct

Answer 53

Elshaaaaaa!! just Yesh or Nuuu i gtg

Answer 54

@Elsa213 I GTG!!!!!

Answer 55

BYE ELSA SEE U NEXT WEEK!!!!