The Federalists and anti-Federalists made certain arguments to support or oppose the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. On one hand, the Federalists claimed that the ratification of the Constitution would, in turn, resolve the troubles that barraged society. In contrast, the anti-Federalists found the Constitution not steady enough to maintain justice and to protect human rights. To begin, the Federalists argued that ratifying the Constitution was necessary because of the instability of the states
After the American Revolutionary War, many Americans were opposed to the idea of a strong central government. They saw the idea of a strong centralized government as a gateway back into the familiar tyrannical government and abuse of power that they had just fought so hard to free themselves of. The idea of creating a new Constitution was unnecessary to some because the Articles of Confederation were already in place. The non-supporters of the newly proposed Constitution called themselves “Anti- Federalist.” Naturally, many of the supporters of the new Constitution felt that it was very much needed and they felt as if the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough to functionally run the government.
The opposing viewpoints of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists created lengthy debates on how the newly found country would run the government and what rules would be considered the supreme law of the land. The anti-federalists thought the government held too much power and wanted the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (Young, slide 30). Patrick Henry, one of the most ardent anti-federalist, advocated extensively for the inclusion of the bill of rights (Young, “Found Fathers…”). Henry constantly voiced his discontent with the constitution and questioned aloud why the inclusion of the Bill of Rights were not added. As the delegate of Virginia, he led the people of Virginia to reject the ratification of the constitution and promised them that by his efforts and their rejection that the Bill of Rights would be included (Young, “Found Fathers…”).
Since they were all for the new constitution, they wanted to go ahead and make it. But the Anti-federalists didn’t want this. They were hesitant on this new government. So, that is why the Federalist papers were created. These were a series of 85 essays that tried to convince Anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution.
Although, there was one thing standing in the way, the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were people who did not support the Constitution and were against ratifying it. The first states to ratify the Constitution was Delaware, than Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut followed. Massachusetts opposed the idea of the Constitution, but feared if they didn’t ratify they wouldn’t be in the union. Shortly after Maryland, South Carolina and New Hampshire followed.
With some Americans refusing to stay open minded to the beliefs of the opposite political party, our country will get nowhere. As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Washington would not approve of this, and demand the next president change this. If George Washington was still alive today, he would be able to give the next president advice to transform our country. Someone with the unbiased mindset toward the two main political parties would be a much needed perspective for the next president.
Hamilton presented a plan to Congress to pay off war debts as fast as possible even if the debts were not promptly paid but was opposed by the southerners because they believed they shouldn’t help pay the debt the northerners still owed. Hamilton hoped to use the new government’s power to unite the disagreeing states and help accomplish his plan. Though the rights of the states were not nearly as important as national power and unity, they tried to keep order among the people in attempting to demonstrate federal power. “Hamilton's ideas about the role of the government in the American system contributed importantly to the ability of the new national government to assume its broad authority.”
First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.
Because nowhere in the constitution does it state that a President had the right to expand the boundaries of the nation (www.shmoop.com). This had quickly became an issue for Jefferson, who followed the constitution in its entirety. But Jefferson who wanted the Territory desperately went through with his plan even in the midst of a debate that it was unconstitutional from others. Jefferson disregarded his fellow politicians who disagreed with his choice and argued by stating “Laws of Necessity” which can be defined as everything that is necessary to preserve a nation is only illegal if it is not done to preserve the nation (www.123helpme.com). He also tried to amend the constitution and submit a draft that would make his actions legal and foolproof.
Since the United States was relatively a new nation, it needed some form of organization to hold the states together and keep its government and society stable to build a stronger economy (Knoedl, 2003). The first and foremost inherited weakness of the Articles came from the fact that it replaced sovereign power in the hands of the states. This started after the American Revolution, when the American people feared that the colonists would form a new government that could function similarly to King George III’s monarchy after having dealt with the British Crown for years. Since then these states would start creating their own set of rules and laws and because of some states, creating their own constitutions and each state can rule itself, it gave more power to them than the actual Federal Government.
Apportioning states to adopt, preside new rules under their own Constitution is a frustrating, tiresome and a waste of taxpayer 's money. Not to discredit the ancestors, attributes and reasons for establishing state Constitutions, but moving to present day there is now a process called the Constitutional Amendments. Nevertheless, in a legal sense, all state constitutions are inferior to the United States Constitution and the final say on this controversial issue; ultimately, it will fall to the federal government.
As tensions in Great Britain grew economically and politically, the American colony declared themselves an independent nation. Gaining their independence was significant, however, keeping it would be the challenge. The Americans knew a stable federal republic was essential to remaining independent, thus they created the Constitution. Although, the creation of the Constitution and the equality it ensues a controversial issue, the Constitution did not fulfil the job it was designed to do. The document did not establish a fair government.
Patrick Henry was one of those famous powerful figures, patriots, who provided support for the antifederalists. Anti Federalists were in debt and they feared a strong central government who would make them pay-off their debts. They thought that it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and there was no bill of rights, thus, they opposed the ratification of the constitution. As shown on Document G, even in a political system, with checks and balances, a certain branch can be too powerful, which can lead to tyranny of the common people. This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval.
A federalist is defined as a person that believes in the Constitution as it is, and argues for ratification. An anti-federalist, however, believes that there needs to be adjustments within the Constitution. While both the anti-federalists and federalists contributed to the Constitution’s success, anti-federalists created the most conflict and elaboration of the Constitution and aimed for success in many years to come. Anti-federalists argued to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. George Mason describes the importance of the Bill of Rights in “Objections to the Constitution”.