Antifederalist saw the Constitution as a way for the Federalist to gain more control over the states. This was seen as the opposite for the Federalist Party because they just wanted to create a central government that was strong enough to run the whole country. The Antifederalist Party was totally against the ratification because they were afraid that the national government would become too powerful and take advantage of their power. The Federalist Party was for the Constitution because they saw it as a way for the people to get more involved in the government since the most powerful branch would be directly linked to the people. Lastly, the Antifederalists saw the Constitution as a way to take the power of the states away while the Federalists interpreted the Constitution as a way for the states and the national government to have similar powers that still allow the national government to handle national affairs rather than having the states do it.
They did not want to share political and economic freedom with freed slaves.
Answer:
As chief justice for more than three decades, Marshall had enormous influence in setting many legal precedents that are still used today. Cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden defined federal power and laid the groundwork for economic growth in very basic ways.
In 1807, the year the embargo was passed, the total exports for the United States reached $108 million. One year later, that number had declined to just over $22 million. This is a loss of $86 million.
Hope this helps.
