<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Federalists vs Anti-Federalists by shaughnessyr@sps.springfield.ma.us</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/shaughnessyr/Federal4</link>
      <description>Which side of the debate would you be on? Justify your answer with specific evidence from your binder and/or the text</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2016-12-12 13:56:01 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2016-12-18 23:13:10 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Jordan Decoteau</title>
         <author>jordanmariedecoteau</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/shaughnessyr/Federal4/wish/143202968</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>If i were alive during these times, i would be a Anti-Federalist. While there were certain advantages to the constitution, there were also many downsides. The constitution would strip people of basic human rights. While i understand the need to be taxed, and protected by armies, doing it without proper consent would result in many issues. The colonists separated from Britain, and one of the issues was being taxed without consent. The Constitution would result in just what Britain had done; create and all-powerful king/leaders. I would be anti federalist only due to those concerns. I would support having national armies and navy's. I also support having a president. My only request for having a president, would be that the power would be split rather than in one persons hand. Another reason to oppose the constitution, is due to the fact that it would prevent the transfer of goods and money from the wealthy to poor. I would have been an anti-federalist in order to protect individual and state rights. While i&nbsp; support some of what the Constitution provided I would be anti-federalist due to the risk of being ruled by a government similar to Britain's. Therefore, i would be Anti-Federalist in order to protect the rights of myself and the state, and to prevent an all-powerful ruler. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-12-12 18:21:51 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/shaughnessyr/Federal4/wish/143202968</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Mia LaPointe</title>
         <author>minimoon310</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/shaughnessyr/Federal4/wish/143203093</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>If i went back to these times, I would be an anti-federalist. As mentioned throughout the text, federalist want a strong central government, a national army, to be able to be taxed to support this and over all wanted to ratify the constitution. On the other hand, anti-federalists believed in the state's power with individual rights, no army no taxes, no central government or president and over all no constitution. This can be taken from the text book, our notes and the board. Though there are many pros and cons to each side, I believe in human rights. We are people and all equal, we shouldn't lose individual rights just to be protected. Who can protect us from ourselves? I don't want a king or dictatorship. Too much power in one person's hands is deadly. I do support a army and i would be willing to pay taxes for this. I do not want a wall between the higher class and lower class because we are still people with the same needs. We put these walls between ourselves and i would fight to make sure that those walls stay on the ground. There is too great of a risk of us falling into the wrong hands. This is why i would be an anti-federalist if I had the ability to go back in time. &nbsp;</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-12-12 18:22:19 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/shaughnessyr/Federal4/wish/143203093</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
