More handpicked essays just for you.
Ratification debate of the constitution
The economy during the american revolution
The economy during the american revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ratification debate of the constitution
A percentage of the opposition accepted that the focal government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others accepted that while the national government under the Articles was excessively powerless, the national government under the Constitution would be excessively solid. An alternate grievance of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution accommodated a brought together instead of elected type of government and that a really elected manifestation of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation. Yours Response for other student post:
In the early years, after winning independence from Great Britain, the American colonies set up their government in accordance with their first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. This means that the majority of the power laid in the hands of the states and Congress, “the only institution of national authority” (Brinkley 151) at that time, had very little power. This distribution of authority was the manifestation of the American’s fear of a strong, central government. However, as time passed, more and more people came to agree that the national government was too weak and needed to be strengthened.
The debate was during the ratification of the Constitution. The anti-federalists believed that it gave too much power to the federal government. While both sides agreed that something different from the Articles of Confederation had to be created, many were uncomfortable with how far the Constitution went, and worried that the states would lose their sovereignty. The Federalists supported the Constitution, because they believed that the nation could only succeed with a strong national government.
➢ To what extent do you agree with the Anti-Federalists' views? Why? ➢ Do you believe that American history since 1787 has justified the Anti-Federalists' fears? Why or why not?
The Constitution was scribed subsequent to the delegation that occurred at the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This document was intended to be an improvement of the Articles of Confederation, in which the ending result was an entirely new government called the republic. The idea of institutionalizing a constitution created differences between the participants of the meeting. Those who opposed the idea of a new government and the constitution were called the Antifederalists and those who supported the ratification of the Constitution were federalists, which is the idea of federalism vs. state’s rights. The Constitution failed to protect the rights of the civilians despite Federalists attempts to persuade individuals
Long have the arguments on whether or not to ratify the Constitution been going on and it is most certainly right to agree. The Framers decided to give more power to the federal government than to the people for an abundant amount of reasons. The Constitution is completely necessary because there are so many problems with the old system: the Articles of Confederation and we need trained people to do important work for the country. The Anti-Federalists are clearly incorrect for bountiful reasons. There are just so many ways that the Articles of Confederation wasn’t working out for us, so we must move on with our plans for the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.
I am Jonathan Dayton, hailing from New Jersey, and I am a Federalist. I am here today at the Constitutional Convention to discuss the pros and cons of the our nation’s governing documents. I will be speaking in favor of a constitution rather than articles of confederation. Speaking as a Federalist, I see some flaws in the Articles of the Confederation. One feature of the Articles of Confederation is that the power of voting would be in the hands of the people.
Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.
The Articles of Confederation: A Re-Interpretation, “that the confederation was to make the colonies into a single individual: "it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate individuality” (page 137). Adams wanted the nation to unify under one common name and leave behind our stately names. They didn’t want any of their rights to be harmed as well, since the new constitution was being written without a bill of rights and was going to change the voting to be based on population. The Antifederalist were unhappy about this proposed constitution, and they would only agree to its ratification once the smaller states had equal say in congress and the constitution to have a bill of
The ratification of the Constitution in 1788 was a controversial dispute among Federalists and Anti-Federalists for several years. Due to the document’s failure to incorporate sufficient liberties both for suppressed blacks and white statesmen, the United States Constitution had many critics. The white majority feared the scope of the federal government’s power while the black minority had their own suspicions. Arguments regarding the rights of African American colonists exploded with the passing of the Constitution. Worries stirred concerning the Constitution’s listed rights that geared more towards whites and the permission of slavery.
“Let our government be like that of the solar system. Let the general government be like the sun and the states the planets, repelled yet attracted, and the whole moving regularly and harmoniously in several orbits.” said John Dickinson, a Delaware Delegate in 1787 (constitutionfacts.com). The United States has a government that, for the most part, flows smoothly. However, our governing documents have not always been so harmonious.
The Anti-Federalists viewed the constitution as an encompassing set of guidelines for the United States’ future government. They believed the document was not meant to be simply a revision or amendment to the Articles of confederation. As such, DeWitt argued that any changes the colonists already felt they needed must be included at the induction of the document. Due to the nature of the people, differences of interests, and mannerisms or local prejudice would stand in the way of any alteration to be made. Aggrandized with the strict majority requirements to pass such an amendment, it was believed that use of drastic armed force would be necessary to finalize any such change.
They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.
