ipl-logo

Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Essay

932 Words4 Pages

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

Open Document