Compare And Contrast The Articles Of Confederation And Amending The Constitution

490 Words2 Pages

At the end of the Revolutionary war, the former colonies were united under Articles of Confederation that loosely bound the new states into a nation. Because of disputes between the states, a constitutional convention was called to improve the Articles of Confederation. Instead of amending the Articles of Confederation, the representatives at the convention decided to create an entirely new document, the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution established a form of government that balanced power between three branches of government and provided for self-governing states. The Federalists were a political group who supported the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were a political group who did not support the Constitution and a …show more content…

The Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, was made into a new system by popular vote. Those who supported the Constitution called themselves Federalists. They followed classical notions of republicanism. They supported a central government system saying, that a carefully constructed government would get rid of any chance of possible tyranny. A republic could be large if the government's design prevented one group from having too much control. They believed in three branches of power, legislative, executive, and judicial. They also stated that there should be separate power between federal and state governments. The political group who did not support the constitution became known as Anti-Federalists. They did not support a central government. The thought that the states should have more power and that the rights of the people should be protected. The leaders of the Anti-Federalists were well know due to the revolutionary war. Other people who supported the well known Anti-Federalists were those who would benefit from an economic and political system less tight than the constitution. These people included Backcountry Baptists and

Open Document