More handpicked essays just for you.
Ratifying the constitution dbq essay
Historical context of the ratification of the constitution
Ratifying the constitution dbq essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Constitutional Convention(1787)- Twelve states participated in the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia the summer of 1787. The first thing accomplished at the Convention was the election of George Washington as Convention president. The delegates agreed upon a structure for their government consisting of a Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch. The next topic tackled was how would the states be represented with the smaller states on one side of the argument and the larger states on the other side. This argument led James Madison to propose the Virginia Plan.
Unit 3 Test After the Revolution and the failure that was the Articles of Confederation, the nation needed order. Thus the nation’s leaders came together during the summer of 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention to draft the Constitution of the United States. The constitution was ratified in 1788. The Federalist Party had to gain nine of the thirteen states’ approval of the constitution to ratify it despite the goals of the Declaration of Independance. After the tyranny of the British rule, the new citizens of the United States wanted a severely limited government.
The primary argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they imagined that the administration would be made would be too effective and they would simply be making ready for another government like the one that they had quite recently contended so energetically to free themselves from England. They likewise needed to include a Bill of Rights before endorsing the constitution and not afterward. The Pros are that the report had expressed to give trust against the unfeeling and unlawful demonstration of decision the american colonies. Freedom of development which is under Article IV. This area said the security and interminable associations and organization among the natives of the rose country.
On September 17, 1787, the convention ended when 38 delegates signed the Constitution and it was finally ratified on May 29, 1790. The Bill of Rights was added not too long after in 1791. In my opinion, for this instance, I believe that compromise was a reasonable decision although I do not believe it is the best option for everyone because sometimes you may not get everything you want/need by choosing something over another, as well as, compromising can cause conflict between both
1. Personally, I believe the constitution was the better document because it had more power. The articles of confederation gave the states more power than congress had, and because of this states either did was it said or did not. Because of the states having more power over Congress, the states did not focus on the needs of the whole country but only cared for their own state and what is best for their people. The constitution is better because it was easier to make changes and amendments to it.
Before ratifying the Constitution, a constitutional convention was called in 1787 to change the Articles of Confederation. This meant that each state had only one vote in Congress, and the size didn’t matter. The debate was between the federalists and Anti-Federalist, one side wanted to ratify the constitution and the other side didn’t. It was not easy because there were documents and articles both supporting and going against it. Who are the federalists?
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
To make any laws, a lot of the states had to vote in favor and there had to be a unanimous vote to amend it. As a result, there were no amendments passed. The Constitution, on the other hand, has a much
The Articles of Confederation structured the first government of the thirteen states. The thirteen states included: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. However, Rhode Island did not vote to revise the Articles right away. Therefore, the proposals of the Constitution continued to be declined by the other states due to not having a balance on votes. When Rhode Island finally sent a representative to the Constitution Convention, the Constitution was approved.
Nine out of the thirteen states had to approve, but many people disapproved of it and didn’t want it ratified. Those who disapproved of it were known as the Anti-federalists. One reason why Anti-federalists did not want to ratify the constitution was that they thought that tyranny would form when they didn’t want one established. To ensure tyranny doesn’t develop, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #47, stated that three branches of government with separate and distinct powers will be needed. (Doc 5)
The Outcry The Constitutional Convention proved to solve the paradox of democracy because it created a strong government that balanced its powers equally. The “Great Compromise” is an example of how to address the minority rights and majority rule without resulting in anarchy or tyranny. The Government should use more compromises that will benefit both the minority and the majority equally. The Constitutional Convention took place because “the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak to govern its citizens” (History).
In the year of 1781 no-one knew that in just a few hundred years the US would become the most powerful country in the world. Back in 1781 we did the ratification to put in place a system of checks and balances therefore we would have an oppressive government. George Hamilton assured the people everywhere that the constitution had created the “perfect balance between liberty and power” Us as Americans strive to prosper economically and achieve the social freedoms that fought for so diligently. We broke away from England to come to a new land, we addressed the issue of slavery, and fought wars against others countries to achieve the independence we have today. When it comes to the constitution being ratified it should have not been ratified for as it would be an insult to the revolutionaries who fought so hard for our freedom.
The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791 written by James Madison. The Bill of Rights was written and added into the Constitution in order to protect the rights of the citizens. The Bill of Rights was added into the Constitution by a compromise between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. Federalists were citizens who supported the new Constitution. While Anti-Federalists were another group of citizens who were scared to have another king or a abusive government, basically did not support the Constitution.
The ratification of the constitution first needed to be approve of two thirds of the thirteen state governments before it became accepted as the law of the land. While there certainly were people who were happy with the constitution there are also many who were suspicious of it. Those people who were afraid was because of a strong powerful federal government. To kind of ease people’s fears and to state what it was all about they wrote a series of essays that are known as the Federalist papers.
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
