Long have the arguments on whether or not to ratify the Constitution been going on and it is most certainly right to agree. The Framers decided to give more power to the federal government than to the people for an abundant amount of reasons. The Constitution is completely necessary because there are so many problems with the old system: the Articles of Confederation and we need trained people to do important work for the country. The Anti-Federalists are clearly incorrect for bountiful reasons. There are just so many ways that the Articles of Confederation wasn’t working out for us, so we must move on with our plans for the Constitution. For example, in Document 5, it shows how under the Articles of Confederation, they had “No executive,” …show more content…
For instance, to quote from James Madison’s letter to George Washington in Document 1, “the national government should be armed with compleat [complete] authority in all cares which require uniformity… right of taxings… terms and forms of naturalizations.” What this means is that we should only let the government do the professional work and so we need to give them more power. If there happened to be some pettifoggers or farmers that somehow made it into the state government, would you really want them designing the process for citizenship or would you want ace lawyers that really know what they’re doing to do it? The federal government should be controlling the tax amounts put on each export and import, because as shown during the time of the Articles of Confederation, when the states did it, everything went horribly wrong as the country couldn’t pay for battle funds or debts. Also, everyone from the states might not agree on fair taxing amounts so they might have different taxes or processes in each state, which is a raw deal for those that have to pay more or go through a lot more to become a citizen. If not this, everyone could get angry or debate about whose idea for becoming a citizen’s best or what the best price to tax at is so it would be simplest to just have one group that knows how to handle everything to work out these professional subjects. In summary, we need smart, educated people to run our …show more content…
For example, they claim that the Constitution only benefits the rich. Of course they say this though, as Document 3 states that they are mostly, “Small farmers,” “Small landowners,” and “Debtors” so they’re only saying this because they want more for themselves and therefore are greedy. They probably don’t have as great an education as the those that are part of the Federalist party: “Large landowners,” “Judges,” and “Lawyers.” Why should you trust people that most likely aren’t even as smart over people that worked very hard in school and got successful jobs unlike farmers and cobblers. To add on, in Document 2, George Bryan, writing for the Freeman’s Press, on October 24, 1787, states, “What security does the Constitution of the several states afford the freedom of the press and other invaluable personal rights, not provided for by the new plan?” Bryan is an Anti-Federalist claiming that our very important rights are not covered for by the Constitution. However, contrary to his claims and very much like Alexander Hamilton once said in a letter to George Washington, we already have these rights from the second we are born. What’s the point in making something that isn’t 100% needed to move on. In summary, the Anti-Federalists are quite obviously incorrect for a number of
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
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.
During the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists were opposed to the Constitution. They argued that the newer system threatened liberties of the people, and failed to protect individual rights of Americans on a general scale. The Anti-Federalists weren 't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements. One faction of Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they believed stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states in their entirety; Others argued that centralized government would have identical characteristics of the monarchical properties of Great Britain which they fought to sever themselves from prior. While others feared that a new government threatened personal liberties.
As it applies to the Articles of Confederation there were many weaknesses in the way it went about governing the United States. For one, the loose federation of the states was too weak to act as a foundation to be considered or act as a central government. In addition the state legislatures had too much power and in turn had the ability to influence economic issues of all kinds. This strong legislature is the same one that allowed for mob ruling and actions by debtors. The Articles of confederation were also weak because the required congress to have all 13 colonies in agreement when a new tax was to be passed.
Following the American Revolution, America was divided into two political groups: the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both parties believed the United states future was in the best interest of the new nation. While the anti-federalists believed in power to the individual states, the federalists believed in a strong central government to body the nation. Prior to 1789, the Articles of Confederation is what held the nation together, despite the immense problems that arose from it. The document was formed in order to equally divide powers in America.
The country has no national defense and no money. The constitution has many progressive concepts that could change the future of the United States. One reason that anti-federalists oppose ratifying the constitution is because they feel like the constitution gives too much power to the congress. Anti-federalists believe that giving too much power to the government would result in something similar to British monarchy.
In document C it talks about how the U.S. constitution is separated in three parts/branches. The legislative(congress), Executive(president) and the Judicial(supreme
Antifederalists were against the ratification of the Constitution because they believed in classical republicanism. Monroe and Kersh (2016) define classical republicanism as, “ a democratic idea … that calls on citizens to participate in public affairs, seek the public interest, shun private gain, and defer to natural leaders,” (p. 69). The Antifederalists wanted citizens to take part in government so that public interests would be well represented so that the minority of the population would not have more power than the majority. The Antifederalists had four main reasons why they were against the ratification of the Constitution. Firstly, according to Monroe and Kersh (2016) “it stripped political control from citizens and placed it in a
In Federalist Paper number one Alexander Hamilton states, “History will teach us…” He conveys what he is trying to say using words like despotism, emolument, obsequious, and demagogues. In an excerpt Hamilton says, “...their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” In other words some of the people supporting the constitution are only doing it because they think it will increase their economical and political status and that it is hard to separate those people from the ones who actually believe in the constitution. It’s hard to separate them because they
In 1787, as a debate over ratification of the Constitution evoke a lot of controversy, American citizens were advised not to rely on anyone’s opinions and to trust their own judgment. Additionally, Philadelphian Samuel Bryan published his first essay under the name “Centinel,” claiming that it would “not be difficult to prove” that only an authoritarianism could “bind so great a country under one government,” and that whatever structure men could formulate to oversee conclusively would develop into a dictatorship. The chosen officials of the government would be “devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.”
Throughout our education careers, we should have learned the importance of both sides of the Constitution debate. However, many have only seen the winning side (Federalist) then the opposing side (Anti-federalist's). The main arguments that arose during the debate concerning the United States Constitution was that the Anti-federalist believed the constitution threatened liberties, failed to protect individuals rights, threatened the sovereignty of the states, and gave to much power to the federal government. Most of the individuals on the opposing side was farmers and workers, which was mainly against anything dealing with a strong national government. They believed that the Bill of Rights would prevent individuals rights from being taken.
When it comes to the Constitution which our nation will follow for the years to come it is extremely important to make sure this government is set up the way we want it to be. The federalists believe in a central government which is then broken down into separate branches which will eventually be selected by the people. The anti-federalists wanted to have a weak government which we already tried through the articles of confederation and that was a absolute fail. They want it to be ran by the states and we know that will not work. the only good thing they could add to the conversation is the Bill of Rights.
merely for vesting in Congress the power to regulate trade. ”(Lee, 790) Not as a committee organized to create a new system unlike one the country, or even the world had seen before. The states didn’t agree to form a new government and Congress did not either. Not even all the chosen delegates of the committee wanted to create a constitution. “Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention.”
The article, “The Anti-federalists Were Right”, from Mises Daily, by Gary Galles, written on Sept. 27, 2006, is about the accuracy of the outcome of the Constitution that the anti-federalists had foretold. The anti-federalists did not approve the U.S. Constitution. They feared that it would form a tyrannical central government, even though the supporters of the Constitution guaranteed that a government like that would never be created. Anti-federalists informed Americans that the Constitution would affect our freedom and the money we own. They wanted to establish the Bill of Rights to form a boundary between the rights of the people and the government.
The constitution and the Bill of Rights have made drastic changes in how this country has developed over these short years. The people on both sides of the arguments have their own opinions. The antifederalists are not use to equal rights. They want one ruler and no equality. The federalists want the