The first paper i chose is anti-federalist paper number seven, which implied that the adoption of the constitution would lead to civil war. In this paper they described how they should stay consistent with what they have. They had just gotten out of the revolutionary war, so at that tie the country was already weak. They claimed that a change in government at a time like that would be fatal for the country. People in the country wanted different things, so a war would likely come about. The article went into detail about how horrible a civil war could be for their country. “Of all the plagues that infest a nation, a civil war is the worst.” This basically warned the people of what would happen if the country did go into a civil war. …show more content…
“Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations.” This was already a common problem in the US because states wanted to claim the western unsettled land. The paper claimed that a federal government like the one they had created with the constitution could be like an umpire. This would stop the arguing and actually prevent a civil war. I believe that parts of each were correct. I can understand why the anti-federalists were so worried about a civil war. Their country was weak at the time and they just wanted to …show more content…
They didn’t expect people to just “accept the merit of the constitution on faith alone.” The federalists knew they had to prove themselves, so they claimed that the constitution was written by ordinary people like the ones criticizing it. They said that there is no plan that is faultless. The articles of confederation were very unstable, so they wanted to make the constitution to where the government was more stable, but it wouldn’t threaten the people’s liberties. They came to a conclusion that to avoid too much power, they would let people be