ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast The Arguments Against The Ratification Of The Constitution

887 Words4 Pages

The Constitution “Give me liberty, or give me death!” (Patrick Henry) The introduction of the Constitution brought along a frenzied dispute between two parties of people known as the Federalists, and Anti-Federalists. Each of these parties had theories on whether or not they believed the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists, a like James Madison, were the individuals who were for the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists shared the belief that the Constitution would bring a good balance of power. While the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry, were the exact opposite; they were against the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists were concerned about their liberty and the government being given too much power. …show more content…

This caused the fear that the nation was too great for the national government to respond to the state and local concerns of people. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, was concerned that the Constitution would interfere with liberty. “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty!” Here Henry expressed his opposition to putting faith in the morality of men to control their actions in order to reserve liberty. Henry didn’t believe the government left individuals with the means to defend their rights. Also, that people lacked the right to nullification. He believed a consolidated government would place all power in the government instead of the people. “It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen?” Henry was also concerned with the lack of guaranteed

Show More
Related

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

    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

  • George Mason And Patrick Henry's Arguments Against The Constitution

    358 Words  | 2 Pages

    George Mason and Patrick Henry had valid arguments and provided multiple points to support their rejection of the U.S. Constitution. George Mason and Patrick Henry were Anti-Federalist, a political party at the time which argued against the formation of a strong central government. Both Mason and Henry opposed the Constitution because they felt the Constitution would be similar to the British monarchy which had a powerful leader which would enforce unfair laws as well as taxes amongst the state governments and the people in them. George Mason main argument against the Constitution was the creation of a National government which would be strong enough to destroy state governments which represented the people and their interest.

    Read More

  • Ratifying The Constitution: Patrick Henry And George Mason

    1399 Words  | 6 Pages

    He also declares that the focus of a government should not be on wealth or power but on liberty, something Henry believes should be “the direct end of your government” (Shi and Mayer, 154-155). One lost right Henry focuses on is the ability to change the government; no one, according to him, will be able to stand up to and change the government proposed, able to wield unlimited power. According to Henry, there are no checks or balances on the federal government’s power under this new doctrine, and rather than focus on the liberty and happiness of its citizens, the nation will focus on becoming an empire through conquest. Henry also touches upon the lack of a Bill of Rights; while the states were given explicit rights in the Articles of Confederation, the people are given none explicitly in the Constitution, leaving all power implicitly to the federal government. He believes that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would stop a dispute from occurring (Shi and Mayer 155-157).

    Read More

  • How Did Hamilton Support The Power Of The Federal Government

    941 Words  | 4 Pages

    George Washington wrote the following in a letter to Alexander Hamilton: “The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians…” Even before the signing of the constitution, the country was divided to two parties that had different views on whether the federal government should have more centralized power than the individual states. Federalists supported a stronger national government, while anti-federalists endorsed stronger state governments. Their opposing views influenced the founding of the nation, and laid the path to the Civil War. As America as a nation matured over time, supporters of states’ rights did not give in to the rising tide of federalism, and the struggle between the two partisans

    Read More

  • Explain What Compromises Were Made At The Constitutional Convention

    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

  • 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

  • Pros And Cons Of Ratifying The Constitution

    647 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the following paragraph, I will describe to you the different arguments that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had with ratifying the Constitution. Our Constitution should involve focusing on the common good and civic virtue of the people. There is no need for an overwhelming amount of power provided for the national government to where they make all of the decisions for us. A Bill of Rights would give us such things as the right to speak freely and make our own decisions that we, as a people, think is necessary for the common good. This writing will describe all of these points that support the Anti-Federalists and the reason to reject the new Constitution.

    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

  • The Dilemmas Of Hamilton And Alexander Hamilton

    1142 Words  | 5 Pages

    - “A leader is dishonest, and also ambitious and clever, Then He will make the military loyal to him instead of to the country and the people.” This shows that Henry is slightly hesitant to go through with the new idea. Alexander

    Read More

  • Differences And Similarities Between Anti-Federalists And Anti-Federalists

    622 Words  | 3 Pages

    Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views in the Constitution because of their differences; but they also had many similarities that ended up leading to the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists and Federalist had many similarities. Both were supportive of this new country and knew that they needed a government. They both wanted the congress to have power to create war and to create treaties.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast A Large Republic Vs Small Republic

    1337 Words  | 6 Pages

    The federalists saw this the opposite way and wanted the large republic and felt that a large republic was the true way to protect liberty. The important

    Read More

  • Ratification Of The Constitution Dbq Essay

    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

  • Robert Yates Anti Federalist 17 Summary

    445 Words  | 2 Pages

    The author of anti-federalist 17# was Robert Yates (not the serial killer), at the time he was a politician and judge also the oldest of his family. he lived in the state of New York and tried to run for governor. The document yates wrote was just about states that the anti-federalists did not desire a constitution as a result of they felt that it 'd offer the central government an excessive amount of power which it 'd remove all power from the states. "to raise and support armies at pleasure, in addition in peace as in war, and their management over the militia, tend not solely to a consolidation of the govt. , however the destruction of liberty..." a stronger central government would higher shield everybody and is additional for the good

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Patrick Henry's Arguments Against The Ratification Of The Constitution

    1192 Words  | 5 Pages

    Making it clear that Patrick Henry ultimately believes that the new government will deprive the people of their rights and not make their voices heard (Henry and Mason 153). A great point made by George Mason was “the power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments” (Henry and Mason, 153). By these few words, George Mason is trying to convey that the idea of a new government is the actual form of a confederation to a consolidated government, a government where the states will lose power and one that would cause for the people to be taxed by different powers. George Mason continues off with the point about taxation by stating that with a consolidated government, the people will not have full representation in the general government making it a situation like it used to be when Britain was in power (Henry and Mason, 153). A point made by Patrick Henry is his concern about the principles of the system proposed and holds in the constitution.

    Read More

  • Patrick Henry's Speech Summary: Give Me Liberty Or Death?

    316 Words  | 2 Pages

    Liberty or Death “Give me Liberty or give me Death!” It was 1775 the time were colonist were trying to break free from British troops and Government. Colonist steadily paying unfair taxes, on all newspaper and public documents which the British Parliament named the “ Stamp Act”. The colonist feared that they would be overruled and would never get there freedom. The only thing they wanted was to get their rights and a new government.

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast The Arguments Against The Ratification Of The Constitution

Open Document