Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Essay

The main argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they thought that the government would be created would be too powerful and they would just be paving the way for another monarchy like the one that they had just fought so hard to free themselves from in England. They also wanted to add a Bill of Rights before ratifying the constitution and not after. The Pros are that the document had stated to provide protection against the cruel and unlawful act of ruling the american colonies.Freedom of movement which is under Article IV. This section explained the security and perpetual interactions and partnership among the citizens of the emerged nation. The document created a bridge to connect the individual States

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

The Constitution did not include the Bill of Rights, the Anti- Federalists believed that this was yet another example of there being no limit on the centralized government’s power, and there was no protection for the

In 1787, the Constitution was written and submitted for ratification by the 13 states, but not everyone agreed with it. There were two groups of though. One was the Anti-federalists, who opposed the Constitution and the other group were the Federalists, who supported it. The Anti-federalists were people who supported the Articles of Confederation because they were doing well under them. They were mostly poor people from rural areas and were supported by the big states. They believed that the Constitution did not secure their rights and gave the central government too much power. The Federalists were mostly the wealthy people who lived in or near city areas and were supported by the smaller states. They believed that the separation of

The ratification of the Constitution was a crucial and momentous turning point in the history of American government. Although this renowned document created much more structure within the national government than it did under the Articles of Confederation, North Carolina was extremely against the ratification of the Constitution. With a strong majority of Anti-Federalist delegates during the debate throughout the ratification convention, North Carolina was called into session twice, in Hillsborough and Fayetteville, where the Anti-Federalists fought diligently for an explicit Bill of Rights to protect individual rights and maintain state economic stability, while the Federalists attempted to assuage the Anti-Federalists’ refusal to accept

The Anti-Federalists will be willing to ratify the Constitution if the Bill Of Rights is included. I believe we should ratify the document the way it is, because if we list the specific rights of the people we are actually limiting the rights. If we miss including a given right, it will be assumed that the government has taken that right when that is not the case. Our rights are generally listed within the Constitution, and there is no need to state them specifically. The Anti-Federalists argue that our rights are not protected, but as I was saying before, if we specifically list the rights, in reality we are limiting them, therefore it is more beneficial to ratify the document as is (“Bill Of

Federalists argued that the Constitution would improve the nation’s economy and social status, as well as fixing the errors made in the Articles of Confederation. Anti-federalists argued that the new Constitution’s executive branch received too much power and the poorer and less educated would receive the least power. Anti-federalists also argued that the Constitution would violate their natural rights and freedoms. Although the Anti-federalists may have made solid arguments, the federalists won the debate. In order for the Anti-federalists to agree with the U.S. Constitution. The convention compromised with the Anti-federalists to write the Bill of Rights to protect and secure citizens rights. Slowly, but surely the U.S. corrected other errors addressed by the Anti-federalists Constitution along the way. All in all, this discourse was a healthy debate for shaping the present United States of

Anti-Federalists and Federalists were opinionated groups who tried to sway Americans about the Constitution. Anti-Federalists opposed developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution. Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power. The Federalists disagreed because they wanted a government that was stronger on the national level and that had the Constitution to manage tensions and debts from the Revolution. They both differed in many ways, but one way that they were similar was because they had an impact on the way the Constitution was written.

The Constitution has been operative since 1789 after the ratification of nine states (American Vision and Values, Page 52). Today many question the relevancy of a document 222 years old to our society. The Founders created a governmental framework, defining three branches and giving powers to the government and others to the states. It also guarantees the rights of the people. It took two and one-half years for the 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution. This ratification period was one of great debate and produced a series of essays complied into The Federalist. Authored by John Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay during the ratification debate in New York, they tried to get public support for the Constitution. Thus began the first

The Antifederalists were obviously opposed to the Constitution, and they were in full support of the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists leaders, like Patrick Henry, believed the Constitution challenged individual’s liberty. The Antifederalists acted in factions. As the Federalists believed in a strong central government, the Antifederalists thought this would get in the way of state sovereignty. Furthermore, other factions within the Antifederalists believed a strong, central government would reflect the government of Great Britain, in which they were trying to get away from. Patrick Henry publicly spoke out against the Constitution claiming it would give the States very limited power. The Constitution was to contain a president, army, and the power to tax. Henry and others viewed this as basically Great Britain. They were afraid that the

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.

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

The Federalists wanted “a centralized federal system and the ratification of the Constitution … who supported a broad interpretation” (Tindall, Shi A16). The Anti-Federalists “opposed the Constitution as a limitation on individual and states’ rights” (Tindall, Shi A3). The Bill of Rights allows the United States to implement national laws, and whatever is not said is left for the states to determine, which allows a basic equality across the states but different interpretations within them. The Bill of Rights allowed a federal and state government resulting in a compromise.

The Federalists also have many arguments that defend the constitution. They are all for the strong central government. This group believes the Articles of Confederation lack to support the needs of the nation, This is their main reasoning behind creating a strong national government. Certain federalists in this group Important people to note in this group include Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and George Washington. Three of theses Federalists wrote a series of essays called the Federalist Papers. These can be read about in more detail on page 3.

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