Humanities
HY1110 Columbia Southern University Anti Federalist Speech Paper

HY1110

Columbia Southern University

Question Description

Unit IV Scholarly Activity ( I have picked Anti-Federalists)  I am going to do the audio part once the speech is done. Below i attached CSU library sources as well and the unit summary. 

With the times quickly changing, and the recent division among those who support the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, public rallies in the town center have become a common thing. 

For the next rally, you have been asked to give a speech regarding how/why you have been influenced by that particular side. After choosing which side to support, use the PowerPoint reading from this unit to choose a minimum of four of the six bullets from slide two titled, “Quick Comparison,” as the basis for your speech. Using these four bullets you have selected summarize how this political divide would evolve into the two-party system. You are to give your speech in the first person based on choosing a Federalist or Anti-Federalist. 

You are to choose only ONE of the two options below to complete for this assignment. 

Option 1: 

By choosing this option, you will write out your speech in essay form. Be sure to address the four bullet points you selected from the PowerPoint within the essay for your speech. 

Your speech must be a minimum of two (2) pages. A minimum of two (2) reputable sources must be used, cited, and referenced, only one of which can come from the required reading section. This means you will need to find at least one additional source on your own. Inappropriate resources, or failure to use resources available in CSU’s online library can lead to deductions (and loss of your news audience). 

OR 

Option 2: 

If you would like to present your speech via audio, then this is your chance! If you choose this option, you will be able to record your speech. Many options exist that you could use to make your recording, such as: 

? Audacity—www.audacityteam.org 

? Online Voice Recorder—www.online-voice-recorder.com 

? Ipadio—www.ipadio.com 

? Webcam file and upload to YouTube. 

Or, you can search for other programs/ways to make your recording to upload. 

You also have the option to record yourself giving the speech and upload it to YouTube. 

The following list will guide you as you prepare the speech: 

? Read the grading rubric that follows these instructions. If you need clarification on any of the grading elements, please contact your professor. 

? Your speech must be no less than 4 minutes and no more than 6 minutes. Speaking outside these time limits can lead to deductions. 

? Plan everything out and be sure to practice your speech before recording it. 

? When you have recorded your speech, play it back. Ensure that your voice is audible, and if a video, that you are clearly in the center of the screen, and that your facial expressions and body language are easily seen. 

In addition to submitting your speech, please submit a reference page separately, which should include a minimum of two reputable sources. These sources must be used, cited, and referenced, only one of which can come from the required HY 1110, American History I 5 

reading section. This means you will need to find at least one additional source on your own. Inappropriate resources, or failure to use resources available in CSU’s online library can lead to deductions (and loss of your news audience). 

To submit your recorded speech and Reference Page, you must upload both documents before clicking Submit. 

Questions should be directed to your professor prior to beginning the assignment. 

CSU librarians can help you with your research for this assignment. 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

662 THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY deliberated. European slave traders’ adherence to African customs, as well as their ability to manage their crew, often determined the outcome of the voyage. In the case of the Hare, Kelley shows the volatility of the slave trade by describing episodes like when some of the Hare’s crewmembers jumped ship for a longboat off the African coast, or when Captain Godfrey executed an African who had led an attack on a different slave-trading vessel. Kelley weaves together these examples of peril and violence with less dramatic, yet frustrating, everyday occurrences on the voyage, like when the ship’s stove caught fire during the journey back to North America. Scholars who research slavery in North America will appreciate Kelley’s microhistory because it examines the gritty details of slave trading within the context of the larger forces at play within the eighteenth-century Atlantic world. The strength of Kelley’s approach is that it concretizes the experience of both slave traders and those enslaved, and moves from detail to broader context effortlessly. In one passage, Kelley reconstructs life in “working Newport” with its “seamen, longshoremen, coopers, caulkers, glaziers, braziers, sailmakers, riggers, and porters,” and in another he sketches out the contours of British mercantilism (p. 18). Ultimately, Kelley’s well-researched exploration into the lives of Africans enslaved in British North America during the late eighteenth century is an indispensable study of the Atlantic slave trade. Clark University Ousmane K. Power-Greene The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional Settlement, 1765–1800. By Aaron N. Coleman. (Lanham, Md., and other cities: Lexington Books, 2016. Pp. xii, 259. $95.00, ISBN 978-1-49850062-3.) The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional Settlement, 1765–1800 offers itself as a revisionist history of the American Founding that corrects what author Aaron N. Coleman calls the “nationalist” conventional wisdom (p. 3). Scholars in thrall to this syllabus of errors, including major figures in the field, are said to have read their approval of later centralization back onto the Founding era. The nationalist interpretation has not adequately appreciated that state sovereignty was the basis of the Revolution and the Union, and that it endured throughout the Founding era, despite the contrary designs of Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist allies. This thesis is pursued through all the major events of the period: from the rationale for the separation from Britain through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The argument is well grounded in primary sources and conversant with the vast literature on the subjects it addresses, and this book stands as a competent expression of the state-centered perspective on the Founding. A major theoretical pillar of Coleman’s argument, adopted from Michael Oakeshott by way of M. E. Bradford, is the distinction between a nomocratic and a teleocratic political order. A nomocratic order lays out processes and methods for addressing common concerns, for making decisions, and for The Journal of Southern History, Volume LXXXIII, No. 3, August 2017 BOOK REVIEWS 663 limiting power. A teleocratic order aims to achieve a specific philosophical objective or grand political project. This distinction is invoked throughout the book, though not in the depth of Oakeshott or Bradford. In practice, Federalists are condemned as teleocratic for wanting to centralize power in the federal government; Anti-Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans are valorized for wanting the opposite. Sometimes (and without explanation) the former term is rendered as “teleological.” The reader is left to wonder whether this difference is intended to carry any meaning. Nevertheless, by use of this distinction, and by other indications, it is clear that the author has subtly but designedly aligned himself with Bradford’s version of traditionalist-localist constitutional conservatism. Thus the revolt of 1776 is tendentiously described as “secession from the British Empire”; similarly, New Hampshire’s ratification of the Constitution completed “the secession from the Articles of Confederation” (pp. 39, 127). Are we thus meant to regard that later and infamous attempted secession as just one more legitimate appeal to state sovereignty? Coleman offers a large clue in the conclusion’s statement that it was Abraham Lincoln and the “Federalist-cumRepublican vision of the sovereignty of national government that emerged triumphant during the Civil War, and became enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment” (p. 237). The Civil War resulted in the “second American constitutional settlement that governs America today” (p. 238). To suggest that our modern Leviathan derived from the Federalists and Lincoln, rather than the Progressives and their heirs in the New Deal and Great Society, is to misunderstand the foundation and salvation of limited republican government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as the causes of its erosion in the twentieth century. It is quite debatable, often on the author’s own evidence, whether the “constitutional settlement” of the book’s title was ever truly settled. The book portrays Federalists as teleocratic backsliders, promise breakers on the topic of state sovereignty and the limits it was meant to impose on the federal government. But this interpretation overestimates the amount of theoretical clarity and agreement that existed. The desire for a stronger central government that could affect citizens directly and defend them adequately coexisted with the desire for limits on its reach in deference to the local authority of the states. Just how to balance these imperatives was not something agreed to once and for all and then deviously abandoned. It was worked out over time as the Constitution was interpreted and put into effect (two inseparable facets of the same process). Constitutional politics happened. Interests and principles clashed; institutions were designed on paper and then functioned in reality. In sum, this book gives us a rich redescription of the Founding from a convinced perspective, but it is skewed by insufficient appreciation that the action it reports was always a political contest over constitutional meaning—not apostasy by one group against the true faith retained by another. Finally, in this reviewer’s opinion the volume is marred by poor editing. Every few pages there are typographical errors, grammatical errors, missing words, or distracting malapropisms that undermine the expression of the author’s ideas and reflect poorly on the publisher. Georgia Southern University Johnathan O’Neill The Journal of Southern History, Volume LXXXIII, No. 3, August 2017 Copyright of Journal of Southern History is the property of Southern Historical Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 370 • JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2017) This lack of engagement with prior prison history calls into question the book’s overall significance. If viewed as a synthetic work, however, Liberty’s Prisoners offers a powerful interpretation of the prison’s emergence and its role in constituting social and political power and status in the early republic. As hley Rub in is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Toronto. She is the author of multiple articles on penal reform, prisoners, and prison history, and is currently writing a monograph on the history of the Pennsylvania System of solitary confinement at Eastern State Penitentiary. The Founders and the Idea of a National University: Constituting the American Mind. By George Thomas. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pp. 252. Cloth, $95.00.) Reviewed by Mark Boonshoft In 1795, George Washington famously pledged to donate $20,000 worth of stock in the Potomac River Company to fund a national university. As its title suggests, George Thomas’s The Founders and the Idea of a National University is about the broader vision that lay behind Washington’s donation and the widespread support for a national university among the founding generation. Benjamin Rush first proposed a national university in 1787. Later that year the Constitutional Convention considered the idea, but opted not to include it in the final document. The national university reappeared in most early republican plans for education reform and drew support from the first six presidents. Congress even considered the idea on a few occasions. The proposal lay dormant for a time, only to reemerge in the Regina G. Kunzel, Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern American Sexuality (Chicago, 2008); Patricia O’Brien, The Promise of Punishment: Prisons in Nineteenth-Century France (Princeton, NJ, 1982); Allen Steinberg, “The Spirit of Litigation”: Private Prosecution and Criminal Justice in Nineteenth-century Philadelphia,” Journal of Social History 20 (Winter 1986), 231–49. ................. 19014$ CH13 04-20-17 13:10:56 PS PAGE 370 REVIEWS • 371 Reconstruction era. Yet it failed at every juncture. Though Thomas narrates this story well, it is not the focus of the book. Rather, as a political theorist, Thomas is interested in what the rationale for a national university tells us about the nature and limits of American constitutionalism. The national university is good fodder for this because supporters defended the institution as constitutionally necessary, even as it died on a series of constitutional objections. A preexisting people, the preamble’s “we the people,” created the Constitution. Paradoxically, though, the document also attempted to create that same sovereign, republican people, to transform an aspiration into something real. This is where the university came in. “As conceived by Washington”—who, for Thomas, is the quintessential supporter of the plan—“the national university might be understood as a supplement to the institutional structure brought forth in the Constitution” (3). By bringing elites from across the nation together and creating personal bonds that transcended geographical divides, the university would create “a political culture with shared beliefs and understandings—things the institutional structure of the Constitution did not provide” (3). Thomas’s book thus rounds out our understanding of how nationalists hoped to use federal power to draw together the young nation. Historians will situate Thomas’s analysis alongside work by Richard R. John on the post office and John Lauritz Larson on internal improvements. Indeed, it is telling that Washington invested shares in the Potomac River Company—an important internal improvement—to fund the proposed university. These projects were part of the same vision. Arguments for the national university, though, betrayed the weakness of the constitutional system it would bolster. Here, Thomas follows David Hendrickson and Peter Onuf in emphasizing that the Constitution primarily created a union, not a nation. “With some irony,” as Thomas astutely shows, “the very decentralized nature of the Constitution in this realm [national sentiments], which moved proponents of the national university to urge it as a necessary ‘institution of support’ in the constitutional scheme, also rendered it difficult to establish” (15). The university’s boosters failed to generate enough nationalistic enthusiasm from across the nation to overcome localism and constitutional objections to the plan. Historians will find particularly valuable chapter 2, in which Thomas analyzes the constitutional debates over the university in relation to other national institutions—including the Bank of the United States, West Point, and the Smithsonian Institute. ................. 19014$ CH13 04-20-17 13:10:57 PS PAGE 371 372 • JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2017) Thomas’s arguments about the university’s unique significance rest largely on comparisons he draws between plans for the national university and other colleges and academies. First of all, plans for the university accorded little importance to religion and less to theological education. “Measured against the backdrop of sectarian colleges where religious belief often defined the mission of education,” Thomas writes in chapter 3, the national university represented a radical departure (91). Thomas goes so far as to dismiss the first three colonial colleges—Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale—as “theocracies” (128). Columbia College and the University of the State of Pennsylvania provided models for a less theologically driven curriculum than the other colonial colleges or the denominational institutions founded in the early years of the republic. Nevertheless, Thomas maintains, regardless of their curriculum, even these schools were not national in scope. The national university, though, would be. Too often, Thomas leaves the reader with the impression that nationalists believed existing schools were not just inadequate, but were part of the problem of insufficient national cohesion. Yet around the same time that Washington pledged to support the national university, he also gave a similar donation of stock in the James River Company to the Liberty Hall Academy in Virginia (now Washington and Lee University). In fact, many supporters of the national university also helped build the academies and colleges that Thomas presents as foils to the national university. That they proliferated while the national university failed leads Thomas to conclude that, helped along by Federalist support for religious institutions, “Anti-Federalist understandings of education, rooted in local government and private organizations, won out in the early years of the nineteenth century” (152). But Federalists, National Republicans, and finally Whigs—not Anti-Federalists, Old Republicans, and Jacksonians—most fervently supported state-chartered local institutions for societal and moral improvement, especially colleges and academies. And they were not simply hedging their bets. Supporters may have defined and justified the national university differently than these other institutions. However, they did still consider them as part of the same project. Thomas gestures to this briefly in his discussion of Benjamin Rush’s support for Dickinson College. The book still leaves the reader wondering: If nationalists saw local schools and colleges as somewhat antithetical to the national university, how did they reconcile their support for both? ................. 19014$ CH13 04-20-17 13:10:57 PS PAGE 372 REVIEWS • 373 This criticism aside, the book is an important addition to the literatures on education and national improvement in the early republic. Thomas challenges scholars not only to think deeply about civic education’s historically uncertain place in American constitutionalism, but also the implications of that history for the present moment. Ma rk Bo ons hof t is a post-doctoral research fellow at the New York Public Library, where he works on the Early American Manuscripts Project. His current book manuscript examines the politics of education in early America. The First U.S. History Textbooks: Constructing and Disseminating the American Tale in the Nineteenth Century. By Barry Joyce. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015. Pp. vii, 335. Cloth, $100. E-book, $99.99.) Reviewed by Johann N. Neem Barry Joyce has written a remarkable, timely, necessary, and fun book about early U.S. history textbooks. He has taken what might have been a boring slog through outdated texts and brought them to life. Packed full of evidence and insight, Joyce’s narrative helps us see how the American creation story came into being. He does for the American narrative what Jeffrey Pasley in The Tyranny of Printers: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (Charlottesville, VA, 2001) did for political parties, looking closely at the often ignored textbook authors who, in ways that are sometimes less than pristine, assembled a national story that, in time, became The Story. Most contemporary scholars of American textbooks have tended to excoriate early U.S. history textbooks for their falsehoods. Not Joyce. If anything, he criticizes modern scholars for misunderstanding the purpose of public history. In his acknowledgements, Joyce thanks his “many friends among the American Southwest Indian cultures for inspiring me to value all creation stories everywhere” (vii). Drawing on the work of scholars of folklore and myth, Joyce argues that every tribe—and why should Americans be excluded, he wonders—needs a creation story that places its members into a larger framework of meaning. Most scholars would find themselves appalled by this idea. Previous ................. 19014$ CH13 04-20-17 13:10:58 PS PAGE 373 Copyright of Journal of the Early Republic is the property of University of Pennsylvania Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 662 THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY deliberated. European slave traders’ adherence to African customs, as well as their ability to manage their crew, often determined the outcome of the voyage. In the case of the Hare, Kelley shows the volatility of the slave trade by describing episodes like when some of the Hare’s crewmembers jumped ship for a longboat off the African coast, or when Captain Godfrey executed an African who had led an attack on a different slave-trading vessel. Kelley weaves together these examples of peril and violence with less dramatic, yet frustrating, everyday occurrences on the voyage, like when the ship’s stove caught fire during the journey back to North America. Scholars who research slavery in North America will appreciate Kelley’s microhistory because it examines the gritty details of slave trading within the context of the larger forces at play within the eighteenth-century Atlantic world. The strength of Kelley’s approach is that it concretizes the experience of both slave traders and those enslaved, and moves from detail to broader context effortlessly. In one passage, Kelley reconstructs life in “working Newport” with its “seamen, longshoremen, coopers, caulkers, glaziers, braziers, sailmakers, riggers, and porters,” and in another he sketches out the contours of British mercantilism (p. 18). Ultimately, Kelley’s well-researched exploration into the lives of Africans enslaved in British North America during the late eighteenth century is an indispensable study of the Atlantic slave trade. Clark University Ousmane K. Power-Greene The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional Settlement, 1765–1800. By Aaron N. Coleman. (Lanham, Md., and other cities: Lexington Books, 2016. Pp. xii, 259. $95.00, ISBN 978-1-49850062-3.) The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional Settlement, 1765–1800 offers itself as a revisionist history of the American Founding that corrects what author Aaron N. Coleman calls the “nationalist” conventional wisdom (p. 3). Scholars in thrall to this syllabus of errors, including major figures in the field, are said to have read their approval of later centralization back onto the Founding era. The nationalist interpretation has not adequately appreciated that state sovereignty was the basis of the Revolution and the Union, and that ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

Attached.

Running Head: ANTI-FEDERALIST

1

Anti-Federalist
Name
Institution Affiliation
31/10/2017

ANTI-FEDERALIST

2
Anti-Federalist

Greetings to you my brothers and sisters, I am before you, not as a leader, but as
one of you, as part of the people who understand why our anti-federalist ideologies are the
only way of making this country great again. This is the only way that the American can
reclaim its freedom on all the areas of life.
The leadership system we have allowed to lead us has taken all our freedoms
away. They want to govern us from a centralized place but this is not the best way to live.
The states need to show their potential socially and economically. This is the only way they
can fully exercise their potential. Regardless of the claims that the government is responsible
for the growth in its sectors, that has been due to ...

nkostas (29716)
UC Berkeley

Anonymous
The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

Anonymous
Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

Anonymous
Just what I needed… fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors