Pros And Cons Of Patrick Henry

Edmond Pendleton and Patrick Henry both have their own justified reasons as to why ratification should or should not exist. Pendleton believes in ratification and Henry objects to ratification. Pendleton believes in ratification to keep the peace and order among citizens, Pendleton also believes that no society can exist without peace and order. “It is the interest of the federal [government] to preserve the state governments; upon the latter the existence immediately from the state legislatures; and the representatives and the president are elected under their direction and control; they also preserve order among the citizens of their respective states, and without order and peace no society can possibly exist.” With this statement Pendleton

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. Even if ratification is in place there should be a Bill of Rights so citizens don’t abandon their rights. “The necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before” In my opinion the government should be strong enough to bring justice to criminal acts, defend the country and still have the rights of citizens abandoning their rights to absolute power. I am in between two different beliefs because, maybe we need a government that instills order, peace and can win a war, but also a limited government to where everything in a state or place isn’t made with