AP Notes, Outlines, Study Guides, Vocabulary, Practice Exams and more!
If this were a question on an AP test (Free Response), which categories would be the best to mention and how should the arguments be presented.
What were the major arguments used by each side (federalists and antifederalists) in the debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution?
:confused: :confused:
I don't have much knowledge on how to answer these questions as far as format and presentation is concerned. you're help would be appreciated.
THANkS:)
We hope your visit has been a productive one. If you're having any problems, or would like to give some feedback, we'd love to hear from you.
For general help, questions, and suggestions, try our dedicated support forums.
If you need to contact the Course-Notes.Org web experience team, please use our contact form.
While we strive to provide the most comprehensive notes for as many high school textbooks as possible, there are certainly going to be some that we miss. Drop us a note and let us know which textbooks you need. Be sure to include which edition of the textbook you are using! If we see enough demand, we'll do whatever we can to get those notes up on the site for you!
Here's what i've written so far...
the categories are messing me up because I have to write it DBQ style w/o documents though
The Federalists argued in the Federalist Papers that a govt. needs all of its branches which check each other to function. The Anti-Federalists advocated state sovereignty which was threatened by the Constitution. The need for an executive branch was foretold by Shay's and used by Federalists as their stronges argument.
Structure counts for a lot on the AP Test, so it is critical that you be able to demonstrate a complex understanding through a simple structure. A good starting point to answer this or any other prompt is to break it into three possibilities or points (think in threes). For example, what were three ways that the Federalists argued for a strong central goverment? What were three ways that the Antifederalists argued against a strong central government OR argued for a weak central government?
Recall James Madison's argument in Federalist 50 regarding a radically new interpretation of how to preserve democracy: history showed that small democracies failed because of the vices of the inevitable aristorcracy that arises in any social group; it also showed that republics, like Rome, failed because of the rise of strong, charismatic autocrats who turned constitutional necessities like dictatorial power into new monarchies (Caesar and his successors are an example). What Madison proposed was both revolutionary and simple: the best way to protect a democratic republic is not to keep it small or to eliminate executive powers, but to base it on a large and thereby diverse populace with competing desires and interests. The competition that arises will prevent the rise of a single leader or the usurpation of public power by a small privileged class. So, one way that the Federalists argued for a strong central government was by redefining the proper way to preserve democracy or democratic republics.
Hope this helps.