ipl-logo

Why Is The Massachusetts Farmers Opposed To The Constitution Dbq

598 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Anti federalists in the constitution

Answer: Massachusetts farmers opposed the Constitution in light of the fact that they felt it ensured exchange more than horticulture, the Federalist Papers were distributed there to pick up backing for it. Virginia and New York would not ratify until the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. In light of the opposition, John Hancock at the Massachusetts ratifying tradition suggested that a bill of rights be included as the first gathering of amendments to the Constitution. Ratification in Massachusetts and pretty much all whatever remains of the uncommitted states relied on upon the comprehension that receiving a bill of rights would be the new government's first request of business. There were the opposition which was made out of assorted …show more content…

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: According to my point of view the anti-federalists played upon these sentiments in the ratification tradition in Massachusetts. By this point, five of the states had sanctioned the Constitution without any difficulty, however the Massachusetts tradition was significantly all the more sharp and hostile. At last, after long open

Show More
Related
353 Words | 2 Pages

Anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and Mercy Otis Warren both opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution because they believed the strong national government the document created would have the power to take away the rights of the people. Patrick Henry’s speech at the Virginia ratifying convention in June 1788 and Mercy Otis Warren’s pamphlet, “Observations on the New Constitution,” both explain their authors’ opposition to the new Constitution for a stronger national government. In his speech Henry spoke of the lack of security for the people’s rights under the Constitution. Because of that, he said, the new Constitution should be considered as a source of anxiety and fear. The people needed to be more protective of their rights,

Read More
1511 Words | 7 Pages

Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..

Read More
1399 Words | 6 Pages

1. The words are those of speeches given by Patrick Henry and George Mason, two influential critics of the Constitution, during the 1788 Virginia Convention in Richmond, but someone else, presumably a secretary, recorded the document. The Virginia Convention was one of 13 held in each state to ratify the new Constitution. This convention was seen as particularly important, for Virginia’s affirmative was expected to become the last needed to officially ratify the Constitution as well as help convince the rest of the states to ratify (Shi and Mayer, 151).

Read More
438 Words | 2 Pages

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

Read More
468 Words | 2 Pages

When political leaders met in Philadelphia to figure out how they could strengthen the Articles of Confederation they soon realized that they needed to replace the entire thing with the US Constitution. Those that did not support the constitution were became known as the anti-federalist and those that supported it were known as the Federalists. The federalist wrote the Federalists Papers that were published in newspapers trying to gain support for the constitution. Two states, Massachusetts and South Carolina wrote up a resolution list to ratify the Constitution in order to get them to support it. Both states wanted “all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution to be reserved to the several States to be by them exercised” (Avalon Project, 1788).

Read More
705 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
99 Words | 1 Pages

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

Read More
1667 Words | 7 Pages

Chapter 1.4 and 2 Study Guide After reading chapter 1.4 and chapter 2, please define the following terms and answer the following questions in your own words. Enlightenment-ideas about nature that led to a movement in which philosophers valued reason and scientific methods Great Awakening- a revival of religious feeling in the American colonies during 1730’s-1750 French and Indian War- a conflict in N orth America, lasting from 1754 to 1763, that was a part of a worldwide struggle between France and the transfer of French Canada to Britain Proclamation of 1763- an order in which Britain prohibited its American colonists from settling west of the Appalachian mountains.

Read More
516 Words | 3 Pages

The Federalist Papers were the main driving force behind the state ratification of

Read More
784 Words | 4 Pages

They believed that this government could provide the stability and security against violent outrages. The foil of these people were the Antifederalist. The Antifederalists offered three objections: that the Congress had conspired under a “veil of mystery” to create a new form of government, that a strong national government would destroy states’ rights, and that the new system of government resembled and monarchy and that violated the principle of liberty that guided the American Revolution. They also pointed that the voters will not directly

Read More
1064 Words | 5 Pages

It could be argued that as the history of the United States has unfolded, the ratification of the Constitution was relatively successful. One might also argue that the Document Americans hold so sacred was ratified with the wrong intent in the first place. Nonetheless, the state representatives chosen to vote on the ratification had a substantial task in front of them. Had I been one of those representatives, I believe that I would have voted against the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of rights left in the hands of individual states, the absence of term regulations for elected presidents, and the turn away from a truly republican governmental system. Based on the political climate of the late 1700s surrounding the state representatives

Read More
260 Words | 2 Pages

The controversies over the ratification of the Constitution was taxation, too much power to the President, trading, and the lack of Bill of Rights. There were people who agreed to ratify the Constitution the way it is, which were called federalists. Federalists reasoned that Americans should ratify the Constitution because Americans are allowed to ask for additional amendments after they ratify the Constitution. The ability to be able to request additional amendments after supported the Federalist’s point of view because the Anti-federalists may ask for further amendments after which could happen after they ratify the Constitution.

Read More
1013 Words | 5 Pages

The tenth Federalist Paper states that “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction” (Madison) Giving the public time to look over and express their opinions gave the Founding Fathers valuable insight into the needs of the people. The states were running as if they were independent countries and were worried about their rights and representation in the federal government. This period of analyzation gave the Founding Fathers the initiative to create the Bill of Rights, which made sure the peoples’ rights were being maintained while also providing a stronger and centralized government. Overall the Federalist and Antifederalist papers may have postponed the Constitution’s ratification date, but ultimately were a fundamental component in making the document strong and

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
156 Words | 1 Pages

There were many important events how ratification of the Constitution was threatened by disagreements between Federalist and Antifederalist. For the Constitution to be approved 9 out of 13 states had to ratify it. Each side wanted some ideas of their own ideas implemented to the constitution, the federalist wanted the ratification of the Constitution, Antifederalist did not. One group called Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Some Antifederalists thought that it would weaken the power of the state government.

Read More

More about Why Is The Massachusetts Farmers Opposed To The Constitution Dbq

Open Document