Two questions
- Describe the federalism vs. the antifederalist
For the constitution to be effective, it required ratification from nine states, the ratification fight took a lot of time, and it wasn’t easy. The structure was supposed to be ratified by an extraordinary ratifying conventions but not by the state legislature. Many states were resisting ratification of the new stronger central government to retain their power. The people who used to support and favour confirmation were known as federalists. On the other hand, those people who used to oppose the ratification were known as Antifederalists (Duncan 1). The main work of the federalist was to attack the weakness of the articles of the confederation. On the other end, the Anti-federalists were supporting the house of representatives who had substantive power (Duncan 2).
The Anti-Federalist were accepting that the constitution was not perfect, but they always said that it was much better than any other proposal in the house. James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were the three federalist who wrote several essays which were known as federalist papers. The content of this paper was explaining the constitution and also defended the provisions of the law. All of this document was meant for the state of New York, but other people across the country were also able to read them. It was the task of the Federalists to defend the weakest points in the constitution, lack of the bill of rights and they were suggesting that current protections were adequate and that the congress was always ready for amendments. Patrick Henry, who was one of the Anti-federalists, attacked the constitution, and he suggested that the law would eventually lead to a very dangerous and influential national government (Duncan 2). A significant number of the Anti-Federalist were ultimately persuaded by the arguments which were tabled by the Federalists (Duncan 2).
- How did Indians cope with the increasing settlement of whites during the 1700s and the subsequent removal of the French after the French and Indian War?
Retaliation helped the Indians to cope up, and it eventually made it possible for them to protect their best interests. In the beginning, there was a lot of conflicts, but during this War, the rivals decided that any movements would have a benefiting aspect to their protection and they were willing by any chance to give up their land (BANNER 8). During this period, the Indians did not have the aspect of having a property as a source of profit as many European individuals, but they took it as a direct source of life (BANNER 11). A large group of people had no concept of owning land privately. The right to use grounds and have them were held by either the entire community or extended kin groups. The Indians were able to cope up with the situation by making sure that there was no single individual who carried the mandate to sign away tribal holdings. Indians were able to adapt to the environment as they found it, and they did not alter with the climate to fit in with their lifestyles as the Europeans did (BANNER 12).
Works Cited
BANNER, S. HOW INDIANS LOST LAND. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IcAkuc_QaE0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=how+did+indians+cope+with+the+increasing+settlement+of+whites+during+the+eighteenth+century+and+the+subsequent+removal+of+the+french+after+the+french+and+indian+war+&ots=uzSZ8lUaMJ&sig=5KB37GoYLeSHc558wB2IbnoTnMM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HAVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, 2005.
Duncan, C. The Anti-Federalists and Early American Political Thought. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cea9/0131acf13048268101305c960a4ba47beced.pdf, Christopher M. Duncan, 2016.