Poglądy antyfederalistów na kształt Unii w czasie Konwencji Filadelfijskiej i procesu ratyfikacji Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych

• Autorzy: Tomasz Tulejski

Warianty tytułu

Anti- Federalist Views on the Shape of the Union During the Philadelphia Convention and the Ratification Process of the U.S. Constitutio

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

CEL NAUKOWY: Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie głównych argumentów antyfederalistycznych przeciwko Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych.
PROBLEM I METODY BADAWCZE: Antyfederalizm był ruchem politycznym końca XVIII wieku, który sprzeciwiał się utworzeniu silniejszego rządu federalnego Stanów Zjednoczonych i który później sprzeciwił się ratyfikacji Konstytucji z 1787 roku. W tym artykule zadano następujące pytania: Dlaczego antyfederaliści sprzeciwiali się Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych? Dlaczego nowy rząd był zbyt silny? Dlaczego silniejszy rząd zagrażał suwerenności i wolności stanów, społeczności lokalnych lub jednostek?
PROCES WYWODU: Dokonano krytycznej analizy tekstu Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych, dokumentów federalistów i antyfederalistów oraz najważniejszych argumentów w wielkiej debacie konstytucyjnej.
WYNIKI ANALIZY NAUKOWEJ: Krytyka Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych przez antyfederalistów wynikała z obaw przed skonsolidowanym rządem federalnym. Jej główne elementy po ratyfikacji stały się narzędziem obrony praw stanów i zasad federalizmu zdefiniowanych podczas debat w Filadelfii i na konwencjach stanowych.
WNIOSKI, INNOWACJE, REKOMENDACJE: Opracowanie pozwala na sformułowanie wniosku, że federaliści stworzyli Konstytucję USA, ale antyfederaliści od początku ją przejęli. To napięcie między federalistami i antyfederalistami trwa w całej historii Stanów Zjednoczonych aż do dnia dzisiejszego. (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The article aims to present the main antifederalistic arguments against the U.S. Constitution.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: Anti-Federalism was the late 18th-century political movement that opposed the formation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. The following questions are posed in this article: Why the Anti- Federalists was opposed to U.S. Constitution? Why the new government was too strong? Why a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and liberty of the states, localities, or individuals?
THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The critical analysis of the texts of the U.S. Constitution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists' papers and the most important arguments in the great constitutional debate has been made.
RESEARCH RESULTS: The Anti-Federalists criticism of the U.S. Constitution resulted from the fears of a consolidated federal government. Its main arguments became, after the ratification, a tool for defending states' rights as well as the principles of federalism defined during the debates in Philadelphia and at the state conventions.
CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The study makes it possible to formulate the conclusion, that the Federalists created U.S.Constitution, but the Anti-Federalists coopted it from the very beginning. That tension between Federalists and Anti-federalists has continued throughout United States' history to the present day. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Federalizm; Konstytucja; Polityka

EN

Federalism; Constitution; Politics

• Czasopismo: Horyzonty Polityki
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: 15
• Numer: nr 50 Homo Politicus et Res Publica
• Strony: 243--260

Twórcy

autor

Tomasz Tulejski

• Uniwersytet Łódzki

Bibliografia

• Caress, Z.E. (2009). Don't Tread on U.S.: The Impact of Federalism in the Formation of American Government. The Hanover Historical Review, Spring, 10, 9-24.
• Coleman, A.N., & Leskiw, Ch.S. (Eds.). (2018). Debating Federalism: From the Founding to Today. Lanham-Boulder-New York-London: Lexington Books.
• Cornell, S. (1990a). The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dis-senting Tradition in American, 1788-1828. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Cornell, S. (1990b). Aristocracy Assailed: The Ideology of Backcoun-try Anti-Federalism. The Journal of American History, 76(4), 1148-1172.
• Duncan, Ch.M. (1994). Men of a Different Faith: The Anti-Federalist Ideal in Early American Political Thought. PolityVol., 26(3), 387-415.
• Eliot, J. (Ed.). (1845a). The Debates in the Several State Conventions: On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Vol. II. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.
• Eliot, J. (Ed.). (1845b). The Debates in the Several State Conventions: On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Vol. III. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.
• Eliot, J. (Ed.). (1845c). The Debates in the Several State Conventions: On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Vol. IV. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.
• Eliot, J. (Ed.). (1845d). The Debates in the Several State Conventions: On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Vol. V. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.
• Faber, M.J. (2015). The Federal Union Paradigm of 1788: Three Anti-Federalists Who Changed Their Minds. American Political Thought, 4(4), 527-556.
• Finkelman, P. (1984). The Complete Anti-Federalist. H.J. Storing (Ed.). Cornell Law Review, 70(1), 182-207.
• Ford, P.L. (Ed.). (1892). Essays on the Constitution of the United States: Published During Its Discussion by the People, 1787-1788. New York: Historical Printing Club.
• Girard, J.P., Mace, D., & Smith, C.M. (Ed.). (2016). American History through its Greatest Speeches: A Documentary History of the United States. Vol. I. Santa Barbara, Denver: ABC-CLIO.
• Hemberger, S. (1990). Dead Stepfathers. Northwestern University Law Review, 84(1), 220-231.
• Johnson, J.A. (2004). Disposed to Seek Their True Interests: Repre-sentation and Responsibility in AntiFederalist Though. The Review of Politics, 66(4), 649-674.
• Kenyon, C.M. (1995). Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 12(1), 3-43.
• Ketcham, R. (Ed.). (2002). The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitu-tional Convention Debates. New York: Penguin.
• Lim, E. (2014). Political Thought, Political Development, and Ameri-ca's Two Foundings. American Political Thought, Spring, 3(1), 146-156.
• Maier, P. (2011). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York-London-Toronto-Sydney: Simon and Schuster.
• McDowell, G.L. (1982). Were the Anti-Federalists Right? Judicial Activism and the Problem of Consolidated Government. Publius, 12(3), 99-108.
• Nedelsky, J. (1982). Review: Confining Democratic Politics: An-ti-Federalists, Federalists, and the Constitution. Harvard Law Re-view, 96(1), 340-360.
• Richards, L.L. (2014). Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Storing, H.J. (Ed.). (1992). The Anti-Federalist. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Wells, W.V. (1865). The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams. Vol. III. Boston: Little, Brown.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35765/HP.2386