ipl-logo

Analysis Of Patrick Henry And Mercy Otis Warren's Observations On The New Constitution

353 Words2 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,

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of View Of The Constitution By Charles Beard

    539 Words  | 3 Pages

    What was Charles Beard’s view of the Constitution? How does that view compare to the traditional secondary school textbook view? Be specific. Beard’s view of the Constitution was that it was made by people in the upper and middle classes in order to create a strong federal government that could be used to their advantage. He stated how this would help them since a strong federal government could be used to force the lower classes to pay more money while the upper classes received power and protection.

    Read More

  • Why Is The Massachusetts Farmers Opposed To The Constitution Dbq

    598 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Patrick Henry

    331 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reading both sets of arguments made by Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry in regards to the constitution, their main points are as follows. Patrick Henry strongly felt as though the states should remain separate. He was not pleased with the idea that the constitution was giving the authority to be adapted by the people as opposed to the states, therefore insinuating the possibility of the states losing rights that they might have or ha. Henry was also opposed to the idea that the constitution did nothing to secure the rights of the people. Hamilton’s argument in Federalist 23 are pretty clear that the only way to properly preserve liberty is by creating a strong central government as proposed by the constitution.

    Read More

  • How Did Patrick Henry Contribute To Government

    646 Words  | 3 Pages

    On May 1765, Henry was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and in his time he served in Virginia House of Burgesses; he was a member of the Virginia committee of Correspondence, a delegate to the Virginia Convention, and a delegate to the Virginia Constitution Ratification Convention. Henry was an outspoken critic of the United States Constitution. He feared that because the Constitution was lacking in an outlined Bill of Rights, the country would devolve into a monarchy. He stressed that an overly centralized government could limit the basic rights of the people, thus he argued for a government where the power would lay in the hands of the states In 1788, at the Virginia convention where Henry served as a representative, he voted against the ratification of the Constitution, and delivered the infamous speech known as “Speech against the U.S. Constitution at the Virginia Ratifying Convention”.

    Read More

  • 'Mercy Otis Warren, Excerpts From' Observations On The New Constitution

    675 Words  | 3 Pages

    Despite the fact that excerpt 7.4, “James Madison, Excerpts from ‘Federalist NO. 51’ (1788)”, and excerpt 7.5, “Mercy Otis Warren, Excerpts from ‘Observations on the New Constitution, and the Federal and State Conventions by a Columbian Patriot’ (1788)” have their differences, there are also some similarities between the two. In the first reading, excerpt 7.4, James Madison wrote an essay to why the people of each state should ratify for the Constitution. James Madison is a federalist. Madison describes that the states would have a constitution, which would have certain laws that all states have to follow, but that they can still have some state laws of their own.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Patrick Henry

    564 Words  | 3 Pages

    Per Henry “A year ago the minds of our citizens were in perfect repose” before ratification. Henry is concerned with the rights of the people and what would happen to them after ratification. “You ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever.” Henry is objecting to ratification because “one government cannot reign over so extensive a county without absolute despotism.” The government will take over with power of their three branches and limit the people’s right to an extremely low point.

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton's Contribution Of The Preamble To The Constitution

    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

  • Ratifying The Constitution: Patrick Henry And George Mason

    1399 Words  | 6 Pages

    Patrick Henry and George Mason both, however, argued against ratification with the rest of the Anti-Federalists. Former Virginia governor Henry had always disapproved of the constitution out

    Read More

  • Ratification Dbq

    177 Words  | 1 Pages

    The interminable discussion over ratification was the first national political debate. Even if the ratification of the United States Constitution had been dismissed, this debate gave an opportunity to national political communities to emerge. The same issues concerned men and women in various parts of the country either to refuse the Constitution or to defend it. One of the most important Anti-Federalist assertions was that the United States was clearly too big to be governed by a single government. According to James Madison who wrote in The Federalist: “Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many chords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same

    Read More

  • Constitutional Convention Versus The Great Compromise

    520 Words  | 3 Pages

    The essays talked about the Constitution and "defended its provision. " They defended the Bill of Rights, which is the weakest point of the Constitution. Patrick Henry, an Anti-Federalist, believed that the Constitution could bring a "dangerously powerful government," so that is why he attacked the Constitution. Eventually, most of the Anti-Federalists were persuaded by the Federalists'

    Read More

  • Ratification Of The Us Constitution Dbq Essay

    827 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

    Read More

  • The Argument Against The Anti-Federalists

    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

  • Ratification Of The Constitution Essay

    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

  • Robert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary

    445 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective

    Read More

  • Speech To The Virginia Convention By Patrick Henry Essay

    615 Words  | 3 Pages

    A role of an individual in society can be played many ways, one of them being that people should fight for their country. This can be exhibited in "Speech to the Virginia Convention" by Patrick Henry ,where Henry believes his country should fight for freedom against the British. He is calling on the patriots of Virginia to arm themselves in order to be prepared to fight the British if they do not yield to some of their demands. The author encourages this message by their emotional appeals and literary devices. In the text, the author exposes the audience to prepare for war by conveying them to fight for their country.

    Read More

More about Analysis Of Patrick Henry And Mercy Otis Warren's Observations On The New Constitution

Open Document