CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Rough Draft

Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution

The state of Rhode Island was mainly populated by antifederalists at the time of the ratification of the constitution in 1787. A signifigant reason they were opposed the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny much of the rights and power of individual states. Reasons behind this strong dissaproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island which was the manual with 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 effecient. There was also a great deal of concern about the land ordinance of 1785, where each states boundaries extended well beyond the boundaries originly assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay of 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 payed 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 Federalis 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 are concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island are 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. Giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would be run under a "king".

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 general 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.

14 comments:

Ian Furgason said...

You have a very strong point about the whole taxation issue, however I don't hear enough of your voice in it. Your I say is very benign and needs to be stronger as well as putting more of a they say in there. Right now it seems your they say is just a statement about what they say, but you really should put more 'passion' for lack of a better word into stating what they say and then why you say the opposite.

Ramila said...

I like your begianing and how clear you explain about the issues in the Rhode island.

Anonymous said...

I don't like the biginning of it, I tihnk the opening needs to have more of a hook to it.
Really like the second paragraph, and for the most part the rest of it.
Good job with that.
And while the conclusion is very to the point, I wouldn't mind it being a little longer really.

Ericka said...

You presented your arguments really well in this essay. I liked it.

Ly Nguyen said...

I liked the way you present your arguments on the Anti-federalists side. You had pinpoint the important issues and reasons why the Anti-federalists believed that ratifying the Constitution will have a negative impacts.

Tiffany Luu said...

First and foremost I would look at your intro paragraph (well, IF that was your intro)... It doesn't really have a hook, and so... its hard to for the reader to get captured and interested in reading your paper.

I like how the argument in here is very clear, but I would also like to see the other side too... :)

Other than that, I really like your paper... ^^

FFlove190 said...

There were few errors I have seen in the essay. Of the prose, in the first paragraph you should attempt to avoid some repetition (mostly the word "state") but the following paragraphs contain no such error. Secondly, I'm not sure if you even had an introduction or not, because I clearly saw three arguments, maybe a conclusion, and absolutely no thesis. Furthermore, most of the essay seemed like regurgitated fact written by a third party instead of a persuasive paper - which, although personal statements are meant to be persuasive, you must argue the side of your argument (being anti-federalism for Rhode Island). You also lacked the "nay-sayer," or opposing view.

In addition, be sure to site all of your sources and include annotations of them below the essay.

Vicky Lay said...

I like your arugment because it clearly shows what you are aruging. Also i like te way you ask a question and give answers and explain the cause/event at same time.

Seann said...

It's pretty good. Only thing I would say is that your third paragraph is pretty long, I would edit it into a couple paragraphs just to make it easier to read.

Anonymous said...

I had trouble figuring out which sentence was your thesis statement in your intro. paragraph.
I only saw the key argument of taxation being written about, make sure you write about each of the 3 that are in your intro.

JordanMBeyer said...

I can tell you did your research. I would however, recommend that you read through and give details where they are due and sift out the things that are unnecessary. also work to make your introduction and conclusion stronger by relating things that you stated.
Good work

Dr. Herb said...

I think your conclusion paragraph can be a little more...conclusive. Other than that, your essay is information-filled, which strengthens the points you are trying to make. Nice work.

Carolyn said...

I think that your voice has been lost a little bit in the shuffle of getting all that information out there; something I would like to point out that you did very well on, but it is missing a few things. One, you don't seem to have a "They Say" part to this essay, which is something that needs to be fixed. Two, it could be a bit longer... and 3, I wasn't really "hooked" into it. Fix those things, and add them in with what you have now, and it'll be amazing :D!

JAck said...

This is a good start. However, I'd like to point out some key elements the essay is missing. First, your I say is kind of weak, spice it up a bit. Your They say could use some work, too. Second, add some of your own voice to it, girl! This is coming from you, these are your words. Lastly, I noticed that you wrote the paper largly aroud the issue of taxation. let's see some other issues as well. This is not a slam, OK? Again, this is a good start for your paper, keep it up.