Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Essay

Each state had to hold a convention after the delegates wrote the Constitution, so the states could decide if they wanted to approve the Constitution. After nine states ratify the Constitution it would go into effect. Some of the states decided to disagree with the Constitution, and therefore it would not be ratified. There was a group of Federalists, and they were the people who thought the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists favored the National government or a Strong Federal Government. Also, the Federalists felt that there must be a stronger central government for the Union to last. They wanted the central government to have powers, such as the power to enforce laws, which the articles did not have. Also, there was a group of anti-federalists that had opposite thoughts of what the Federalists wanted. The Anti-Federalists felt that the Constitution made the government too strong. One of the main arguments that the anti-federalists used to argue with was, they felt that the central government would take away state power and individual freedom by weakening the states. Another one of the points they argued with was, there was no Bill of Rights, and many other states had one, and in that case there was no protection of basic freedoms. The Federalists and Antifederalists argued against each other whether

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 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.

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.

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 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 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

constitution still needed to be ratified in order to be set in place. Nine of the twelve states would have to approve for the U.S. constitution to be ratified. The were still several states that opposed. American leaders such as james madison, alexander hamilton, and many others wrote the Federalist papers 3. Eighty-five essays aimed at convincing the anti-federalist to ratify the new constitution. The federalist papers were a significant part of the U.S. political history and played a key role in getting the U.S. Constitution ratified. The basis of the federalist papers was strong government to hold states accountable to the people or “mob”. The federalist papers basis was to also face many of the problems the articles of confederation could not solve. The articles of confederation mainly could not do important functions such as regulating commerce and the ability to

During the Revolutionary War, colonists believed that they needed a sense of unified government, so this led to the creation of the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the United States (history.com). Although the Articles of Confederation had its strengths, such as allowing the central government to create treaties and maintain military, it had many weaknesses, such as preventing the central government to levy taxes and regulate trade. It also could not be changed unless there was a unanimous decision and it lacked a stable currency. Since the creation of the Articles of Confederation had many issues and weaknesses, the Continental Congress rewrote the Articles into what is now known as the U.S Constitution. The Constitution established a national government, guaranteed basic rights for the colonists and revised almost everything that was wrong in the original Articles, such as the sovereignty that resided primarily in the states and the lack of power from the national government. The Constitution was later ratified by all 13 states in May 1790, with the support of the Federalist Party. [A] Federalists believed in the commitment to a strong national government and in the practice of a separation of powers. However, Anti-Federalists had the opposite view which was the opposition of a strong national government, the support for small landowners, and the representation of rights of the people. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong national government

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.

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.

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.

For the Constitution to become the nationally followed series of rule, nine of thirteen states would have had to approve it. To gain this approval, the people of America had to be convinced that a stronger government was needed to create a successful country; while being assured that this government would not take away their liberties and would not give power to only those who were more privileged than others. Small states, who approved the unity, were the first to ratify the Constitution unlike large states who found the individual governments adequate.

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

After the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, it was voted that Constitution would become the new foundation of the national government, not the Articles of Confederation. At the time, there were thirteen individual states that had to vote to ratify or reject the Constitution. Within these thirteens states, there were two groups that consisted of the Federalists and the Antifederalists. The Federalists supported the Constitution; however, the Antifederalists opposed the Constitution.