지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This essay is an analysis of the debate between the Federalists and the Antifederalist in Virginia ratifying convention. One of the surprising aspects of the debate is the conservative posture of the opposition. The Antifederalist saw in the writing of the Constitution threats to cherished values: to law, to political stability, to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and to federalism. But in the Federalists' view, what is important is not a consideration of legality or status quo but the end of the Constitution. They argued that the members of the Philadelphia Convention accomplished the great end, the preservation and well-being of the Union by repealing the Articles of Confederation and by writing the Constitution. This view of the matter by the Federalist took the debate to higher ground. Thus, the core of the debate between the Federalists and Antifederalist was as follows: Between the small republic and the extended republic, which is superior in securing individual liberty and domestic tranquility?
Three fundamental considerations are central to the Antifederalist claims that a large republic has the administrative defects: Only a small republic can enjoy a voluntary attachment of the people to the government and a voluntary obedience to the laws. Only a small republic can secure a genuine responsibility of the government to the people. Only a small republic can form the kind of citizens who will maintain republican government. Against the Antifederalist argument which defend the existence of the small republic, the Federalist endeavored to refute that argument and to stress the advantages of the extended republic.
The Antifederalist of Virginia led by Patrick Henry had suspicion of centralized authority. They did not believe that the large republic would be able to preserve individual liberty and to protect private rights. Having the belief that only a small republic which has a homogeneous people can preserve people's liberty, they thought the Constitution represented a betrayal of the American Revolution.
Meanwhile, the Federalist of Virginia led by lames Madison maintained that justice and liberty would be pursued and obtained better in the extended republic. To them, the Constitution was seen as the fulfillment of the Revolution.
Nevertheless, between the political thought of the Federalist and Antifederalist there is not so big difference than is thought. They did not have any disagreement on the nature of man. Both parties had strong suspicion of the power. Also they agreed that the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights and that the best instrument for this purpose is limited, republican government.
Three fundamental considerations are central to the Antifederalist claims that a large republic has the administrative defects: Only a small republic can enjoy a voluntary attachment of the people to the government and a voluntary obedience to the laws. Only a small republic can secure a genuine responsibility of the government to the people. Only a small republic can form the kind of citizens who will maintain republican government. Against the Antifederalist argument which defend the existence of the small republic, the Federalist endeavored to refute that argument and to stress the advantages of the extended republic.
The Antifederalist of Virginia led by Patrick Henry had suspicion of centralized authority. They did not believe that the large republic would be able to preserve individual liberty and to protect private rights. Having the belief that only a small republic which has a homogeneous people can preserve people's liberty, they thought the Constitution represented a betrayal of the American Revolution.
Meanwhile, the Federalist of Virginia led by lames Madison maintained that justice and liberty would be pursued and obtained better in the extended republic. To them, the Constitution was seen as the fulfillment of the Revolution.
Nevertheless, between the political thought of the Federalist and Antifederalist there is not so big difference than is thought. They did not have any disagreement on the nature of man. Both parties had strong suspicion of the power. Also they agreed that the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights and that the best instrument for this purpose is limited, republican government.
목차
1. 머리말
2. 헌법제정의 타당성에 관한 논의
3. 소공화국론 대 광역공화국론
4. 맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미국 헌법의 제정과 미덕 : 고든 우드의 해석에 대한 비판을 중심으로
역사교육
2000 .12
-
미국 헌법의 제정과 연방공화국의 건국
역사학보
2008 .06
-
北京政府時期(1912～1928) 中華民國 憲法草案에 나타난 중앙지방 관계
대구사학
2006 .01
-
Democracy, Faction and Diversity An Analysis of the Existential Ground of Democratic Republic Reflected in The Federalist Papers
Korea Observer
2020 .01
-
페더럴리스트 페이퍼의 사상적 배경에 관한 연구- 고전 정치철학의 영향을 중심으로
동서철학연구
2019 .01
-
대한민국 제헌헌법과 ‘건국절’ 논란 : 헌법 전문과 중앙정부론을 중심으로
한국사학보
2016 .11
-
프랑스 제3공화국의 헌법 개정, 1875~1889
프랑스사 연구
1999 .12
-
부산의 중국 유학생들에 대한 인문교육 현황 분석 ― 재(在)釜山 國立釜慶大學校 유학생 사례를 중심으로
중국학
2019 .01
-
‘건국’을 바라보는 두 가지 시선 : 엘리트와 민중
역사비평
2008 .08
-
Continuity in the Political Leadership and Economic Development of the Republic of Korea, 1948-1972
Korea Journal
1980 .04
-
The Position of the Two Korean Republics on Unification : April 1960-May 1961
Korea Journal
1976 .11
-
제1공화국 시대의 한국 교회 : 정부 당국과의 관계를 중심으로
한국기독교신학논총
2006 .04
-
Legal Status of Aliens in the Republic of Korea
Korea Journal
1971 .12
-
한국의 근대국가 건설운동과 공화제
역사학보
2008 .12
-
階級과 共和 : 중국공산당의 ‘共和國’ 구상의 변천
중국근현대사연구
2011 .12
-
The Role of Female and Male Christians in the Democratic People`s Republic of Korea : Some Cases
한국기독교신학논총
1997 .10
-
공화국과 공화주의
역사학보
2008 .06
-
토마스 제퍼슨의 『버지니아 주에 대한 비망록』에 나타난 자연, 인간, 그리고 사회
인문언어
2015 .01
-
8ㆍ15 후 좌우세력의 헌법 제정 시도에 대한 사실 관계 해석과 그 정치적 성격 : 민주주의민족전선, 비상국민회의, 민주의원을 중심으로
역사교육
2008 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-374-015490655