Articles Of Confederation Dbq Essay

During 1787 through 1790, the formation of the Constitution caused much controversy in America. Many of the greatest political figures joined together to agree upon what is best for the governmental structure of their nation. The two political parties engaged in these discussions were known as the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. In the novel entitled Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow and the speech “Virginia Should Reject the Constitution” given by Patrick Henry, the authors exhibit the ideological differences and similarities between federalists and anti-federalists, including their reasons for either supporting or opposing the constitution and a strong central government.

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

After numerous harsh battles had been fought during the American Revolution, the Americans would at last claim their independence from the Great Britain. The United States would officially become its own nation once the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3rd of 1783. The leaders of this new American nation now had a new adventurous journey ahead, one that would have many troubles and issues along the way. In the act of establishing government in America, the new leaders would create the Articles of Confederation, which was the first constitution of the United States. This document would help to settle the conflicts taking place inside the new nation.

The Anti-Federalists believed that a strong central government would decrease the rights of the common people, and would not protect the rights of citizens. In Document 1, a Massachusetts farmer explains that the new constitution would decrease involvement of the common people in government, leaving it to be run by wealthy and highly educated men. The Anti-Federalists wanted all people to be involved in government, rather than a selected elite few. The Anti-Federalists also rallied against the establishment of a standing military. As said in Document 2, a military could easily exercise force to quiet those with concerns involving the government, and that the ideas of being free and peaceful do not involve a standing army. Perhaps one of the biggest concerns of the Anti-Federalists, was that there was nothing in the constitution that protected the rights of the people. Thomas Jefferson supported parts of the new constitution, but disliked that there was no Bill of Rights in the document. Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison saying “...Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to….” (Doc 6). Jefferson believe that the people should have this Bill of Rights in the constitution to protect their personal freedoms and beliefs. With that he fully supported the ratification of the new

The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

It also provided a stronger image of America in relation to other countries in the world. The proposed constitution also proposed the establishment of a united army, which would function to protect America from external attacks (Schultz 126). The Anti-Federalists strongly opposed the implementation of the constitution as it relinquished some of their powers, and made them answerable to the federal government. However, they later on supported its ratification after the Bill of Rights was included (Schultz 126). The Bill of Rights was of great importance to them as it guaranteed that their liberties and freedoms were still preserved despite the constitutional change.

In the year 1787, early America, officials and delegates came together to form a constitution that would restore the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the attempt at creating a government for the newly independent America. But, it soon became clear that the document was not strong enough to govern America. Therefore, delegates who came to be known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists issued major arguments on the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Federalists were individuals who wished to unify the 13 states in negotiation, and

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States was neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held between those who supported the Constitution, the Federalists, and those who were against it, the Anti-Federalists. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a centralized republic. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect the Constitution would have on state power, the power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create, and the issue of a standing army. One of the most important concerns of the

The Anti-Federalist party was made up of people who, for the most part, lived in the country. They were opposed to developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution, which, they claimed, threatened each free person’s liberites, until the authors included the Bill of Rights. (This granted individual rights of citizens. The Anti-Federalists wanted to write down these so that they could not be taken away from the people by the government like England had done.) Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power to prevent monarchies and dictatorships. Famous members of this party were Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Mercy Otis Warren, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and James Monroe. They favored the Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation had a few flaws: if a law was to pass, it would need a majority rule (9/13); it lacked a court system (nationally); and it was missing an executive branch. The Bill of Rights was appreciated because they wanted to make sure that individual rights could not be taken away. The Anti-Federalists may not have been a group that agreed with one another all the time, but as their opinions varied, more rights were thought of and protected. For example, one part of the group held the view that the sovereignty of states could be endangered

The Anti-Federalists favor a central government similar to the Articles of Confederation. Not all of the Anti-Federalists think identical; Some prefer to stay with the Articles of Confederation and a slightly stronger central government with the states in power would work for America better others prefer to compromise and only adding the Bill of Rights. "The objects of jurisdiction…, are so numerous, and the shades of distinction between civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail." In the Centinel No. 1 the Anti-Federalists tell the people that slightly changing the judicial system or the law can change everything. “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.” In Brutus I the Anti-Federalists input their opinions on how government does not need to be run by one big power but by smaller powers held in the

The real dilemma the Anti-Federalists had with the constitution, when the constitution was signed it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect citizen’s rights. The Anti- Federalist feared a national government would strip citizens of their individual rights. The Anti-Federalists did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary War.

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

The Anti-Federalist put up a long and hard fight, however, they were not as organized as the Federalists. While the Anti- Federalist had great concerns about the Constitution and National government, the Federalist had good responses to combat these concerns. The Federalist were and for the Constitution and feel the Article of Confederation were not worth ratifying, these should be scrapped altogether. They felt that the Articles limited the power of congress, because congress had to request cooperation from the states. Unlike the Anti-Federalist, the Federalist organized quickly, had ratifying conventions, and wrote the Federalist papers to rebut the Anti- Federalist arguments.

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government

The arguments resembled that the Federalist held the upper-hand since they were wealthy landowners to take charge of the democracy. Conversely, Antifederalist were afraid to give into signing the constitution in favor of the Federalist ideas because they felt it would grant too much power to the National Government instead of the States. The dispute between the Federalist and Antifederalist lead to, what is known today, as a breakthrough of famous Federalist Papers that lead to the greater understanding of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers appeared as persuasive writings developed by what we know today as historical figures that make up the founding fathers of the ratification of the Constitution. The writings of the Federalist argued that they held the privilege to secure the government to favor the economy. The Federalist wrote to convince the public in the newspapers that their views and actions would create a perfect balance and protect the Nation’s people. On the other hand, Anti-Federalist opposed ratification of the Constitution in favor of the federalist ideas. The Antifederalist persuaded that the Federalist would favor slavery, and people’s rights would be in danger. The two groups feuding created an important factor in the U.S. Constitution. Like so, the Federalist considered the Antifederalist ideas and managed to compromise a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution in favor of absolute security to people’s rights