Federalist vs. Antifederalist

I think I would identify myself as anti-federalist because I believe that the elite and educated people should be in the government and getting those privileged opportunities. Democratic happens to be where I side with. And I guess I was democratic from the beginning. Like the former president Rho, he was one of my favorite presidents because he was not rich and was listening to all classes of people. I feel like he was the president who knew how to listen. He did not look fancy at all but went along well with the title people's president although he did have some haters. According to the isidewith test I took online showed that I side with Joe Biden 85%. I didn't know who he was till that day, but we both shared some similar philosophy for the country. Even though he isn't running for election and I am not allowed to vote yet, but I was to vote, I would vote for Joe Biden.  
The conflict between federalists anti-federalist was big in 1780 and 1790s, but it wasn't a conflict just during this era, but this conflict still lives. 

There is a slight difference in federalists, and antifederalists. For example, with regulating the economy, federalists want to give more power to the economy while the antifederalists do not. 

I disagree with equal distribution of the illegal immigrants just like the antifederalists. The reason why they disagree is because they say that the EU needs its respect the sovereignty of each of its member states. However federalist believe that EU should have collected power to decide whether to equally distribute regardless of Czech and Hungary have sovereignty, therefore, it is okay for them to come into the states and have equal distribution. I side with the antifederalists because I strongly believe that countries like Czech and Hungary hold the right to speak of their own as well. I don't think EU should have the absolute right to decide on such an important issue. 

Blog 3- Mama British

In our US history class, we are talking about the 7 years war and discussing if the British were justified in their treatment of the colonies after 1763. This colonial time is quite interesting and depending on which side you are thinking at, your position will be the total opposite. I personally believe that American revolution was not justified.

First, the taxes were imposed because of the French and indian war. that was fought by the British to protect the colonies against the french therefore, since the war was for the colonies’ benefit, the taxes were justified. The colonies were being provided with the best military protection from the most powerful country at that time. The cost of that service should be shared by the colonists as well.

Secondly, the British were not trying to take advantage of the colonists. - the British citizens living in the main land paid 50 times more tax than the colonists. the British were merely asking the colonists to share the burden a little bit. 

Lastly but certainly not the least, the tax acts such as Sugar Act and Stamp Act were put in place for the British government to start collecting taxes that they have ignored for a long period of time. The British government knew that the colonists were smuggling products such as sugar and molasses into the colonies without paying the taxes that were due - it was only out of generosity that the British government ignored the colonists’ illegal activities. Since the French and Indian War brought in vast new territory for the colonists to occupy and profit from, the colonists should have contributed to pay back the debt. 

These are the points that I would like to make for the statement. To sum up, I do believed that the British were justified in their treatment of the colonies after 1763 due to the following reasons. The taxes were imposed because of the French indian war and secondly, the British were not trying to take advantage of the colonies yet they were there to help and lastly the tax acts were there for the british government to get what they had to get from long time ago-they were just doing their job.

selfish or selfless

Puritans were a group of highly religious people who fled to North America in the 17th century from Europe as a result of religious persecution from the Church of England. Although they are widely known to have lived a very strict life and were dedicated to God, they were more selfish than people think. It is true that they were very serious about their religion, but the extent to which they practiced their religion caused them to become selfish. The way Puritans treated the Native Americans, as well as the way they treated those who went against their social conventions, suggest that the Puritans were actually acting out of selfish reasons.

Puritans left England looking for religious freedom in the 1630s due to the Church's persecution. The Church of England and the Puritans weren't able to come to a point of compromise. The Puritans first arrived in Holland but moved to New England later on. The Puritans were Protestants, but they were different from other Protestant groups. The Puritans were very strict, and how they exiled people and even practiced witchcraft show their uniqueness. As a Christian, at first sight, I thought they were a good group of people. I thought they were just people who wanted religious freedom, and I was amazed by their dedication to God and thought their way of life deserved much respect. When I read the document "City Upon A Hill" by John Winthrop, I also  thought they had such an excellent leader who knew how to inspire his people. However, another document I read regarding John Cotton's sermon gave me an impression that the Puritans were more selfish than they seemed. I realized that John Winthrop had also exploited religion to take advantage of Native Americans. His mouth spoke scriptures from the Bible, but his actions were the exact opposite of the words he preached. John Cotton, another Puritan leader, even claimed they were the "inhabitants" in the new land and that there was nothing wrong with them claiming the land that he thought was rightfully theirs. However, as many people know, the land belonged to the Native Americans who have been living there long before the Europeans arrived.

Not only the Native Americans, but also those who went against the strict teachings of Puritanism were victims of selfishness shown by Puritans. For example, both Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams were kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony because they had beliefs that were not supported by the society they lived in. Williams and Hutchinson both opposed what they considered to be wrong within the Puritan society. Furthermore, Anne  Hutchinson was the first women to stand up and argue against the Puritans. As a result, Anne Hutchison and her entire family had to flee but was later captured and executed in front of other Puritans. The execution was done to show what would happen to them if they did not follow the rules and went against their teachings. It is ironic that the people who themselves faced persecution and had to flee to another continent persecuted their own people for challenging the Puritan authority. The Puritans seem to be into religion too deeply that they went off track, thinking that this is the type of religion that God was asking them to follow.