Antifederalists Against the Constitution

During the time the United States Constitution was ratified (1787), there were two dominant groups of American citizens: the Federalist party and the Antifederalist party. The Federalists and the Antifederalists could not have had more conflicting views. The Federalists were very pro Constitution, whereas the Antifederalists were not. The Federalists were opposed to the idea of having the rules of their country be very uncertain, as those in Great Britain were. There were many reasons that the Antifederalists did not support the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, some more significant than others. First, the Antifederalists were dissatisfied that the early version of the constitution did not have a Bill of Rights. The Federalists disagreed with the Antifederalists because they believed that with a Bill of Rights, the Americans would be very limited in their liberties. The Federalists believed that the Bill of Rights would grant citizens only the listed rights and deny citizens of many desired ones. The Federalists and Antifederalists finally made a compromise and added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that displayed a basic set of guidelines protecting the most critical rights of citizens. The Antifederalists also objected to the Constitution because they thought it would weaken the power of the states and the individual liberties of the U.S. citizens. The Antifederalists believed that the Federal government should have equal or less power than the state governments. By leaving the fate of our country's common law in the hands of the Federal government, Antifederalists believed the Federal government would have kept gaining power until there is no power left with the states.

Salutary Neglect and the Boston Massacre

The Boston Massacre was a turning point in the lives of the citizens that inhabited the American colonies. Before the Boston Massacre there was already an extreme amount of tension between the colonies and Great Britain due, in the most part, to the Royal troops moving into Massachusetts in October 1768. The Massachusetts citizens had the right to be angry with Great Britain considering that the troops were there to enforce the colonists to obey the skewed Townshend Acts. From the time the Colonies were created it was a known fact that their relationship with the British was going to be strictly "don't ask, don't tell": the Colonies were able to get away with illegally trading and transporting items without being penalized by the Parliament. Britain displayed "salutary neglect" toward the colonists, and that is what led the colonists to doing what ever they wanted and more importantly so, that is what drove the colonists to develop the mindset that they no longer had to obey British law anymore. When Great Britain sent Royal troops into Massachusetts it not only made the colonists feel like children, it also made it extremely difficult for the colonists to illegally trade and transport items that were included in the Townshend Acts. Though the colonists had a right to be angry, the Boston Massacre was utterly uncalled for. John Adams, who was usually against the British and pro-independence, said that his defense of the British soldiers in 1770 was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my [his] whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I [he] ever rendered my [his] country." (Find more information on the different views of the significant figures of the Boston Massacre here.) With the French out of North America, as a result of the French and Indian War, the colonists were already skeptical about why they needed to have Great Britain protecting them, therefore when the British abruptly changed the way they ruled over the colonies the British gave the colonists an excuse to do something they conceived as productive: the Boston Massacre. (Video reenactment available here.) Although the colonists were merely acting upon their just indignation, they acted foolish and the British soldiers, being there to serve their country, reacted in the only way the knew, which was to fight back and protect themselves and their country. Although the British were doing many unfair things to the colonists at the time, the Boston Massacre was significant because the colonists provoked the British soldiers to shoot into the rowdy crowd. In essence, the Boston Massacre was the result of the colonists believing that they could get away with anything. The independence of the colonies was inevitable; however, there may not have been as many violent and irrational revolts on the road to freedom if Great Britain nipped it's usage of salutary neglect in the bud.