1) Group Interaction

Our group worked the best together near the end. This is probably because we buckled down under the pressure of the oncoming deadline. While research was being performed, there were obvious strengths and weaknesses of each group member that were being brought into the light. When we actually started writing, though, Junalyn automatically stepped up as a leader and began assigning sub-deadlines for each of us to accomplish. This style of action was very proactive and effective for our group and we all helped to encourage one another not to procrastinate.

2) Use of Contract

The day before our essay was due, I was absent from school. Junalyn sent me an e-mail that day reminding me of the sanction in our contract regarding attendance and how it was not mandatory, but the important stipulation of making sure all work gets done. I finished my work for that day from home in accordance to the rules outlined in our group contract.

3) Use of Wiki

Our Wiki was truly a creation and sustenance of our group collaboratively. During the project's research phase, we all contributed to the sources and annotations page for our project. During the Outlining phase, we all contributed to the creation and editing of our outline on the wiki. It helped provide a central location for us to forge together all of our ideas for the collaborative essay.

4) Individual Progress

I don't think I've ever had to write an essay with three other people. The thought of it still gives me a feeling of too much clutter and a disaster prone to much collision of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. Nevertheless, the situation proved as a learning experience that enabled me to develop new strategies that proved very efficient. The first is also quite possibly the most obvious, but:

Dividing up the work between four people means less work for each person.

I soon learned that, although this project required a certain level of "special" attention from each person, dividing up the work gave me a great level of relief.

I now feel that I like working in groups more. However, I would much prefer a larger group where there is more accountability for the more "lazy" people.

Also, as in every response, I do honestly feel as if my writing style has improved. The most important aspect of writing to me is, and always will be, the proper translation of my thoughts into easily understandable words.

Vince Coppola
Junalyn Dela Cruz
Sioned Fearon and
Cymone Lee-Johnson
11/28/07

Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution

The state of Rhode Island was mainly populated by anti-federalists at the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. A significant reason they were opposed to the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny many of the rights and powers of individual states. Reasons behind this strong disapproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island which contained the 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 efficient. There was also a great deal of concern about the land ordinance of 1785, where each state boundaries extended well beyond the boundaries originally 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 paid off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government. Anti-federalism held a much safer outcome for the maintenance of sovereignty in each individual state as opposed to the ideology of the federalists.

How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalist Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian party, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason of Rhode Island’s refusal to the federalists’ “urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention, was that Rhode Island was concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island was content with the liberty and the independence based on their states’ constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Rhode Island was satisfied of their organization of their political group, Country Party. The Country Party was known for issuing paper currency to pay off Revolutionary War debts (Doherty 96). Rhode Island believed that running democracy in their state government would be more sufficient than running democracy as one whole nation. In Shay’s Rebellion, the confederation wanted to tax every state for the debts but with democracy, the right for their voice, people oppressed against them. Affected by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, Rhode Island knew that the state can be controlled than one nation controlling every state. Anti-federalists understand that the federalists proposed republicanism which was to give voice to the people through the senators. Though Rhode Island’s concern was giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would run under a "king."

An issue that played a major role in Rhode Island being an anti-federalist state was the probable outcome that a central government would overpower the individual states. Rhode Island had just fought passionately to steer away from a monarchical rule, and was now being pressured to go back in that direction. Plenty of colonies having claims to land westward didn’t help Rhode Island become in favor of the Constitution any faster. Rhode Island was one of the few colonies that didn’t have any land claims. Other colonies having land claims, with the expectations of expanding, in the event of a central government, would have superiority. Other colonies, such as Virginia, who had land claims from Kentucky to Wisconsin, would easily overpower such a small colony as Rhode Island in a central government. Those fortunate colonies that held more land had the advantage over others that didn’t, such as economically and military wise. Loss of independence was greatly feared, thus explains why no delegates were sent to the Constitutional Convention of 17--. Rhode Island was perfectly content with the previous laws set forth, which enabled them to have more freedom than most other colonies. A central government would take away so many of the advantages they have, in order to make them equal with every other colony. The residents of Rhode Island worked too hard to gain their independence and liberties, and were too grateful to risk that for an unsure idea.

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 central 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.

Individual Responses
Vince: For me to choose a side of the federalism vs. anti-federalism debate, I would simply weigh the historical reasons for both alongside the present information of how everything worked out. Essentially, America today WORKS. Our country has a thriving economy and a very strong military. I believe that the federalists had the best idea with creating a sturdy union between all of the states. The anti-federalists had some legitimate concerns about taxation and their security as states, but ultimately, federalism clearly prevailed. If one were to imagine the current situation of our states if the constitution hadn’t been ratified, it would probably be filled with much internal
conflict and civil wars. Therefore, federalism held the best possible outcome for America.
Junalyn: The debate between the federalists and anti-federalist were rickety because some individual states took longer in ratifying the Constitution. I agree with the individual states that took their time in ratifying the Constitution. The states were concerned about their rights and taxation. They wanted to take care of their war debts before accepting the Constitution. Concerned about the state rights, the Congress incorporated most of the states’ rights into the Bill of Rights, which was then used in the Constitution. This helped the anti-federalists’ satisfaction into rectifying the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted to take care of their state governments before going into a federal government.
Sioned: If there was to be something like the constitutional debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller individual governments with their own different laws. Anti-federalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Cymone: To choose to be a federalist or anti-federalist is not something easily done. They both had key points, and depending on how they were effectively integrated, would determine the status and success of America today. I am personally torn between the two. I agree with the federalists that there should be a central government. In order for America to prosper, there needs to be some sort of unification amongst all the states. A central government aids states in the fact that the individual states won’t have to feel that they have to deal with their issues on there own and will have support from other states. I agree with the anti-federalists that the individual states come before the central government. I personally would deal with the concerns of my own state before national concerns because it is closer to home. While some can easily decide between the two, I can be satisfied with agreeing on certain ideas from each party.

Sources:
1.Doherty, Craig A., and Katherine M. Doherty. Rhode Island. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005.
2.Moehn, Heather. The U.S. Constitution: a Primary Source Investigation Into the Fundamental Law of the United States. 1st ed. New York: The Rosen Group, Inc., 2003.
3.Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
4.http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhode-Island-History.html
5.http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976634/97p0326q/2?frame=noframe&userID=a89
c4f45@highline.edu/01c0a848740050157f7&dpi=3&config=jstor
6.http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html