In the context of United States Advanced Placement Government coursework, the term describes individuals who opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. These individuals feared that the new Constitution gave too much power to the national government and threatened the sovereignty of the states and the liberty of individuals. Prominent figures associated with this position included Patrick Henry and George Mason. Their opposition stemmed from concerns about the potential for tyranny under a strong central authority, leading them to advocate for a weaker federal system that preserved states’ rights.
The significance of this group lies in their contribution to the Bill of Rights. Their persistent concerns about the absence of explicit protections for individual liberties ultimately compelled the Federalists to pledge to add a bill of rights as amendments to the Constitution. This assurance was crucial in securing ratification. The legacy of this opposition is evident in the ongoing debates about the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and the protection of individual freedoms.
Understanding the arguments against a strong central government during the founding era provides valuable insight into the development of American political thought and the ongoing dialogue surrounding federalism. Further investigation into specific arguments raised and the compromises reached reveals the complex negotiations that shaped the foundation of the American governmental system and its subsequent evolution.
1. States’ rights advocacy
States’ rights advocacy formed a cornerstone of the position. This principle emphasizes the importance of individual states retaining significant autonomy and decision-making power, operating independently of, or with minimal interference from, the central government. This advocacy directly influenced the trajectory of early American constitutional debates and the structure of the government ultimately adopted.
-
Opposition to Federal Overreach
Those holding this viewpoint argued that the proposed Constitution granted excessive power to the federal government, potentially leading to the marginalization of state authority. They believed that a strong central government could encroach upon the rights and interests of individual states, ultimately undermining their sovereignty. Examples of this concern included the federal government’s ability to levy taxes and regulate commerce, powers which they felt should primarily reside with the states.
-
Preservation of Local Control
The belief that decisions should be made at the local level, by individuals who are most familiar with the specific needs and concerns of their communities, fueled the support for states’ rights. Advocates believed that state governments were better equipped to address the unique circumstances of their citizens than a distant federal government. This perspective was particularly prevalent in rural, agrarian communities, where local self-governance was highly valued.
-
Fear of Uniformity
States’ rights proponents expressed concern that a strong federal government would impose uniform laws and policies across the nation, disregarding the diverse social, economic, and cultural characteristics of individual states. They feared that such uniformity would stifle innovation and experimentation, and that it would not adequately address the varying needs of different regions. This concern manifested in debates over issues such as slavery and economic policies.
-
Impact on Constitutional Compromises
The strong advocacy for states’ rights significantly influenced the compromises that were incorporated into the Constitution, such as the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. This amendment serves as a testament to the enduring influence of this position and its commitment to preserving a balance of power between the federal government and the states.
The emphasis on states’ rights reflected a fundamental distrust of centralized authority. This belief system shaped their opposition to the initial Constitution and played a critical role in the subsequent addition of the Bill of Rights. The legacy of this ideology continues to resonate in contemporary debates about federalism and the appropriate division of power between the national and state governments.
2. Fear of Tyranny
The apprehension of despotic rule served as a primary motivator for those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. This fear, deeply rooted in experiences with the British monarchy, significantly shaped their arguments and demands during the formative years of the United States.
-
Historical Context and Colonial Grievances
The recent experience of British rule, characterized by perceived abuses of power such as taxation without representation and the quartering of troops, fueled a strong aversion to centralized authority. The memory of these grievances informed their interpretation of the proposed Constitution, leading them to view any concentration of power with suspicion. The absence of explicit limitations on governmental authority was seen as a pathway to repeating the abuses of the past.
-
Lack of Explicit Protections and Individual Liberties
A major concern was the lack of a bill of rights that would explicitly safeguard individual liberties from potential government encroachment. They argued that without such protections, the national government could infringe upon fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. The omission was perceived as a deliberate oversight by those seeking to consolidate power, thereby increasing the risk of oppressive governance.
-
Concerns Regarding a Standing Army
The prospect of a permanent standing army under the control of the national government aroused apprehension. Historically, standing armies were associated with authoritarian regimes and were viewed as instruments of oppression. The fear was that a powerful military could be used to suppress dissent and enforce unjust laws, undermining the autonomy of the states and the liberty of the citizenry. Therefore, strict limitations on the size and deployment of the military were sought.
-
The Potential for Faction and Abuse of Power
The belief that a large, centralized government would be susceptible to factionalism and corruption contributed to the fear of tyranny. They argued that powerful factions could seize control of the government and use it to advance their own interests at the expense of the common good. The lack of sufficient checks and balances in the original Constitution was seen as exacerbating this risk, potentially leading to the abuse of power and the suppression of minority viewpoints.
The pervasive fear of tyranny among those who opposed the Constitution significantly influenced the course of American history. Their insistence on a bill of rights and limitations on federal power shaped the structure of the government and continues to inform debates about the appropriate balance between individual liberty and governmental authority. Their concerns underscore the enduring importance of vigilance in safeguarding against potential abuses of power.
3. Limited national power
The concept of limited national power represents a central tenet of the beliefs held by those who opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution. This position stemmed from a profound distrust of centralized authority and a conviction that governmental power should be dispersed, with states retaining considerable autonomy. This desire for limited national power was not merely a preference; it was viewed as a fundamental safeguard against potential governmental overreach and the erosion of individual liberties. The perceived danger of replicating the oppressive aspects of British rule fueled a commitment to restricting the scope and authority of the proposed federal government. For instance, they strongly objected to provisions they believed granted Congress excessive control over taxation and the regulation of commerce, arguing these powers should primarily reside within the individual states.
The emphasis on limiting national power directly influenced the political landscape and the shaping of the Bill of Rights. The persistent advocacy for explicitly defined limitations on federal authority directly led to the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, or the people. This amendment stands as a tangible result of the efforts to ensure that the national government remained constrained within defined boundaries. Furthermore, the debates over the necessary and proper clause and the supremacy clause underscore the ongoing tension between the desire for a strong, effective national government and the imperative to protect state sovereignty. The fight for amendments became the cornerstone of a successful push for civil liberties.
Understanding the historical context and the arguments surrounding limited national power provides critical insight into the enduring debates about federalism in the United States. The tension between a strong central government and the preservation of states’ rights continues to shape policy discussions on issues ranging from healthcare to education to environmental regulation. The legacy of the opposition to the Constitution serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully considering the potential implications of governmental power and the need to safeguard individual liberties and state autonomy in the face of expanding federal authority.
4. Protection of Liberty
The safeguarding of individual freedoms was a paramount concern for those who opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution. This emphasis on liberty directly shaped their objections to the proposed framework and significantly influenced the eventual inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
-
Demand for Explicit Rights
The absence of a bill of rights in the original Constitution fueled substantial opposition. Individuals argued that without explicitly enumerated protections, the federal government could easily infringe upon fundamental liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. The demand for these protections was not merely a theoretical concern; it reflected a deep-seated fear that a powerful central government would inevitably encroach upon individual autonomy if not explicitly restrained.
-
Fear of a Distant Government
The belief that a remote national government would be less responsive to the needs and concerns of individual citizens contributed to the emphasis on liberty. Opponents of the Constitution feared that a distant government would be less accountable and more likely to disregard the rights of individuals in favor of broader national interests. The preference for localized governance stemmed from the conviction that it provided a more effective check on potential abuses of power.
-
Influence on the Bill of Rights
The persistent advocacy for the protection of liberty directly resulted in the adoption of the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution enshrine fundamental rights and limitations on governmental power, addressing many of the concerns raised during the ratification debates. These amendments serve as a lasting testament to the importance that they placed on safeguarding individual freedoms against potential governmental overreach. For instance, the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms), Fourth Amendment (Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure), Fifth Amendment (Right to Due Process), Sixth Amendment (Right to Speedy Trial) and Eighth Amendment (Protection from Cruel and Unusual Punishment) ensures that the government cannot infringe on the inalienable rights of the citizen.
-
Legacy in Constitutional Interpretation
The emphasis on protecting liberty continues to resonate in contemporary constitutional interpretation. Debates over issues such as privacy rights, freedom of expression, and due process reflect the enduring tension between governmental authority and individual autonomy. The arguments and principles articulated by those who initially opposed the Constitution remain relevant in shaping our understanding of the proper balance between these competing interests, shaping Supreme Court decisions and legal discourse.
In summary, the protection of liberty formed a central pillar of the arguments against the original Constitution. Their advocacy directly contributed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, shaping the character of American government and continuing to influence constitutional debates today. Understanding the historical context of this commitment to liberty is essential for comprehending the ongoing dialogue about the appropriate role of government in safeguarding individual freedoms.
5. Decentralized government
Decentralized government, a core tenet, represents a fundamental principle that underpinned the opposition to the ratification of the United States Constitution. This concept advocates for distributing governmental power away from a central authority and allocating it to smaller, more localized entities such as state and local governments. The proponents of this arrangement believed that decentralization acted as a safeguard against tyranny and ensured greater responsiveness to the specific needs and preferences of individual communities. The emphasis on distributing power countered the concentration of authority in a strong national government, a prospect viewed with considerable apprehension. The desire for decision-making closer to the people was paramount. This concept stems from the belief that local governments are inherently more aware of their community’s needs, leading to more equitable and appropriate decisions. They are more accessible and accountable to the people.
The connection between a decentralized system and the opposition during the founding era is directly causal. The perceived threat of a powerful, centralized federal government prompted advocates of this system to demand explicit limitations on national authority and guarantees of state sovereignty. The structure of the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution, exemplified a highly decentralized system with a weak central government. The perceived failures of the Articles in addressing national challenges such as interstate commerce and defense prompted the call for a constitutional convention. However, opponents feared that the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction, creating a national government that would overshadow the states.
Understanding the advocacy for decentralized government within the context of this historical position provides valuable insights into the enduring debates about federalism in the United States. The tension between national authority and state sovereignty continues to shape policy discussions on issues ranging from healthcare to education to environmental regulation. Furthermore, the practical significance of this understanding lies in its ability to inform contemporary discussions about the appropriate balance of power between different levels of government, and the importance of maintaining a system that is both effective and responsive to the needs of its citizens. The legacy of this founding-era debate is reflected in ongoing litigation and political discourse concerning the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause and other provisions of the Constitution, serving as a reminder of the enduring relevance of these fundamental principles. The key is to find a balance in government that protects individual and state rights while still maintaining a functioning society and nation.
6. Agrarian focus
The “agrarian focus” constitutes a significant dimension within the tenets held by individuals opposing the ratification of the Constitution. This perspective centered on the belief that an agricultural society, composed of independent farmers, formed the ideal basis for a republic. Proponents viewed agriculture as a virtuous and self-sufficient way of life, fostering independence, civic responsibility, and a strong connection to the land. They feared that a strong central government, with its emphasis on commerce and industry, would undermine this agrarian ideal, leading to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few and the erosion of individual liberties. This agrarianism was not simply a preference for rural life; it was a deeply held conviction that the health and stability of the republic depended on the preservation of an agricultural society. The perceived virtue of the farmer, self-reliant and closely connected to his community, contrasted sharply with the perceived dangers of urban centers and commercial elites. For example, Thomas Jefferson, though not strictly an opponent of the Constitution, articulated many similar agrarian ideals, emphasizing the importance of the independent farmer as the backbone of American society.
The connection between this agrarian emphasis and opposition to the Constitution lies in the perceived threats that the new framework posed to the agricultural way of life. The proposed Constitution, with its provisions for a national bank, federal taxation, and the regulation of commerce, was viewed as favoring commercial and industrial interests over those of farmers. Opponents feared that these policies would lead to increased debt, land speculation, and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a commercial elite, thereby undermining the independence and self-sufficiency of the farming population. This fear manifested in resistance to federal taxation, which farmers often viewed as an unjust burden, and in skepticism towards national economic policies that seemed to prioritize the interests of merchants and manufacturers. Shays’ Rebellion, an uprising of indebted farmers in Massachusetts in 1786, exemplified the economic grievances that fueled this agrarian discontent and contributed to the opposition to a stronger national government.
Understanding the agrarian focus provides critical context for comprehending the broader concerns about the balance of power in the early American republic. The debates over the Constitution were not simply about governmental structure; they reflected fundamental disagreements about the kind of society that the United States should become. The agrarian ideal, with its emphasis on individual liberty, self-sufficiency, and civic virtue, continues to resonate in American political thought and serves as a reminder of the importance of considering the impact of governmental policies on different sectors of society. Recognizing this focus allows for a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between economic interests, political ideologies, and the shaping of the American governmental system, providing context for the enduring tensions between rural and urban interests in American politics. This focus highlights the importance of ensuring fairness and equity in economic policies to maintain a healthy balance for the overall social and economic well-being of the nation.
7. Opposition to Constitution
The stance against ratifying the 1787 document is intrinsically linked to the definition of a specific group in United States Advanced Placement Government. This position, characterized by deep-seated concerns about centralized power, shaped their identity and actions during the formative years of the nation.
-
Fear of Centralized Authority
A primary driver of the resistance was apprehension regarding the potential for tyranny inherent in a strong federal government. Recalling experiences under British rule, individuals feared that the proposed Constitution lacked sufficient safeguards against governmental overreach, potentially leading to the suppression of individual liberties and state sovereignty. This concern was exemplified by arguments against the Necessary and Proper Clause, which was viewed as granting Congress excessively broad powers. The perceived absence of explicit limitations on governmental authority fueled demands for a Bill of Rights to protect fundamental freedoms.
-
Advocacy for States’ Rights
The emphasis on preserving the autonomy of individual states formed a cornerstone of opposition. Proponents of states’ rights argued that the Constitution granted excessive power to the federal government, potentially undermining the sovereignty of the states and their ability to respond to the specific needs of their citizens. This perspective was particularly prevalent in states with strong regional identities and concerns about the potential for federal interference in local matters. The Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, reflects the enduring influence of this principle.
-
Demand for a Bill of Rights
The absence of explicit protections for individual liberties in the original Constitution was a major source of contention. Individuals believed that a bill of rights was essential to safeguard fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press from potential governmental encroachment. This demand ultimately led to the adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which enshrine these rights and limitations on federal power. The inclusion of the Bill of Rights is widely regarded as a direct consequence of the opposition’s advocacy and its commitment to protecting individual liberties.
-
Economic Concerns
Economic considerations also played a role in the resistance to the Constitution. Some individuals feared that the proposed system would favor commercial and financial interests over those of farmers and artisans. Concerns were raised about the potential for increased taxation, burdensome regulations, and the creation of a national bank that would benefit wealthy elites at the expense of ordinary citizens. These economic anxieties contributed to a broader distrust of centralized authority and a desire to maintain local control over economic affairs.
In summary, the stance against the Constitution was multifaceted, encompassing concerns about centralized power, the preservation of states’ rights, the protection of individual liberties, and economic anxieties. These factors collectively defined the core tenets of the group opposing ratification and shaped their actions during this pivotal period in American history. The legacy of their concerns continues to resonate in contemporary debates about the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and the protection of individual freedoms.
8. Bill of Rights demand
The demand for a Bill of Rights constitutes a defining characteristic of those who opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution. The absence of explicit protections for individual liberties in the original Constitution served as a primary catalyst for their opposition. This group believed that without a clearly enumerated list of rights, the federal government possessed the potential to infringe upon fundamental freedoms, thereby jeopardizing the very principles of the American Revolution. This demand was not merely a suggestion; it was a non-negotiable condition for their support of the new government, reflecting a deep-seated fear of centralized authority and a commitment to safeguarding individual autonomy. Patrick Henry’s vehement speeches against the Constitution in Virginia, for example, centered on the lack of a Bill of Rights and the potential for governmental tyranny. The persistent pressure exerted by this opposition ultimately compelled the Federalists to concede to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights as amendments to the Constitution.
The promise of a Bill of Rights proved instrumental in securing ratification in several key states, including Massachusetts and Virginia. In these states, ratification conventions were closely divided, and the assurance that amendments would be added addressing the protection of individual liberties swayed enough delegates to vote in favor of the Constitution. The subsequent adoption of the first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, fulfilled this promise and addressed many of the concerns raised during the ratification debates. These amendments enshrine fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, self-incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishment. The Bill of Rights stands as a testament to the influence of this opposition and their commitment to ensuring that the federal government remained accountable to the people and constrained by explicit limitations on its power.
Understanding the connection between the Bill of Rights demand and those who opposed the Constitution provides valuable insight into the ongoing debates about the balance between individual liberty and governmental authority. The Bill of Rights continues to serve as a cornerstone of American jurisprudence and a vital safeguard against potential abuses of power. The debates surrounding its interpretation and application reflect the enduring tension between the desire for a strong, effective government and the imperative to protect fundamental freedoms. Studying the historical context of the Bill of Rights allows for a more nuanced understanding of its intended purpose and its continuing relevance in contemporary society, particularly in discussions concerning privacy rights, freedom of expression, and due process of law. Their fight for the Bill of Rights ensures that individual rights are safeguarded by law from government infringment.
9. Distrust of elites
The apprehension toward privileged and influential societal figures was a recurring theme influencing the perspective of those opposing the Constitution’s ratification. This skepticism toward elites stemmed from a concern that the proposed government favored the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the common citizen.
-
Economic Disparity
Economic disparities fueled suspicions, as the Constitution was perceived to benefit merchants, creditors, and large landowners. These individuals believed that the proposed system would lead to increased taxation and regulations that disproportionately burdened farmers and artisans. Shays’ Rebellion, an uprising of indebted farmers in Massachusetts, exemplified this economic discontent. A strong central government, in their view, would serve the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the common person.
-
Elitist Representation
Concerns arose regarding representation in the proposed Congress. The structure, with relatively few representatives elected from large districts, was seen as favoring individuals with significant wealth and social standing, potentially marginalizing the voices of ordinary citizens. Distrust existed regarding the capacity of these elites to genuinely represent the interests of the common people, especially those in rural and remote areas. The belief was that wealthy individuals would be more likely to sympathize with and advocate for the interests of their own class, rather than those of the broader populace.
-
Fear of Aristocracy
Underlying the distrust was a fear of aristocracy. The absence of term limits and the potential for the concentration of power in the hands of a few raised concerns about the emergence of a ruling class that would be detached from the needs and concerns of the citizenry. The memory of British rule, with its hereditary aristocracy, informed this apprehension. The aim was to prevent the establishment of a similar system in the newly formed nation. They wanted to avoid history from repeating.
-
Lack of Transparency
The secrecy surrounding the Constitutional Convention itself contributed to the distrust. The deliberations were conducted behind closed doors, fueling suspicions about the motives and intentions of the framers. The lack of transparency raised questions about whether the Constitution was designed to serve the interests of a select few rather than the broader public. This lack of openness fostered a climate of skepticism and fueled opposition to the ratification process.
These facets of elite apprehension directly contributed to the stance against the Constitution. The fear that the document favored the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the common citizen shaped arguments and demands, including the insistence on a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties against potential governmental overreach. The legacy of this distrust continues to resonate in contemporary debates about economic inequality and the influence of money in politics, underscoring the enduring relevance of these concerns.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries and clarifies misconceptions surrounding the historical position in relation to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Question 1: What core beliefs defined those opposing ratification, and what were their primary concerns?
Central to their position was a profound distrust of centralized power and a commitment to safeguarding individual liberties and state sovereignty. Their primary concerns revolved around the potential for governmental overreach, the absence of explicit protections for individual rights, and the fear that the proposed Constitution favored the interests of the elite at the expense of the common citizen.
Question 2: In what ways did their arguments influence the structure of the government and the Bill of Rights?
Their persistent demands for explicit protections for individual liberties and limitations on federal power directly led to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as amendments to the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment, reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, also reflects their influence in shaping the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
Question 3: Were proponents of this political theory simply against a strong government, or did they propose alternatives?
They were not necessarily against all forms of strong government, but they advocated for a more decentralized system with greater emphasis on state sovereignty and local control. They proposed alternatives that included a weaker central government with limited powers, a larger representation in Congress to ensure greater accountability, and explicit protections for individual liberties to guard against governmental overreach.
Question 4: What role did economic considerations play in the concerns expressed regarding ratification?
Economic considerations were significant, with concerns raised about the potential for increased taxation, burdensome regulations, and the creation of a national bank that would benefit wealthy elites at the expense of ordinary citizens, particularly farmers and artisans. Their fears centered on the belief that the proposed system would favor commercial and financial interests over those of agricultural communities.
Question 5: How relevant are the arguments and concerns in contemporary political discourse?
The arguments concerning the balance of power between the federal government and the states, the protection of individual liberties, and the influence of economic elites remain highly relevant in contemporary political discourse. Debates over issues such as federalism, privacy rights, and economic inequality reflect the enduring influence of these concerns. These ideals continue to spark debate in the 21st century.
Question 6: Who were some of the prominent figures of this political ideology, and what were their key contributions?
Key figures included Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee. Their primary contributions involved articulating concerns about centralized power, advocating for states’ rights, and demanding a bill of rights to protect individual liberties. Their persistent efforts shaped the course of American history and contributed to the structure of American government and the protection of individual freedoms. These names are forever a part of the foundation of the United States.
In summary, understanding the historical opposition offers valuable insights into the complexities of American governance and the ongoing dialogue concerning the balance between individual liberty, state sovereignty, and federal authority.
The next section delves into specific historical events and figures associated with the debates surrounding ratification.
Navigating Understanding of Positions Opposing Ratification
The following guidance aims to refine comprehension of the group and related core concepts for application in coursework or examinations.
Tip 1: Define Key Terminology. Distinguish between federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Precise usage clarifies comprehension of the arguments.
Tip 2: Identify Core Beliefs. Explicitly state the major tenets, including concerns about centralized power, advocacy for states’ rights, and the necessity of a Bill of Rights. A clear articulation of these beliefs demonstrates thorough understanding.
Tip 3: Understand the Historical Context. Demonstrate knowledge of the historical backdrop, including experiences under British rule and the perceived weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Contextual awareness adds depth to analysis.
Tip 4: Connect Theory to Application. Relate the theoretical principles to specific provisions within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For example, link the concern about centralized power to the Tenth Amendment and the reservation of powers to the states.
Tip 5: Analyze Primary Source Documents. Engage with primary source materials, such as the Federalist Papers and writings from opponents. Direct engagement with these materials provides deeper insights and supports original analysis.
Tip 6: Discuss Prominent Figures. Accurately identify and discuss the roles and perspectives of key individuals, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason. Doing so shows the human element behind these political ideals.
Effective comprehension demands a systematic methodology. Precise understanding of these principles prepares one to thoroughly analyze constitutional debates.
This refined approach enhances aptitude for handling exam questions and comprehending the enduring impact of those with the position “anti federalists ap gov definition” in the evolution of American governance.
Concluding Remarks on Defining Positions
The preceding exploration clarifies the meaning within the context of United States Advanced Placement Government coursework. It demonstrates the group’s multifaceted concerns regarding centralized power, its advocacy for states’ rights, and the crucial role it played in securing the Bill of Rights. The examination highlights the lasting impact of their ideas on the structure and interpretation of the Constitution.
Continued study of this opposition to the Constitution is essential for a comprehensive understanding of American political thought and the enduring debates surrounding federalism. Evaluating historical arguments informs contemporary discussions about the balance of power and the protection of individual liberties. Recognizing the complexities of the founding era fosters a more nuanced perspective on the evolution of American governance.
