The Pros And Cons Of Ratification Of The Constitution

452 Words2 Pages

History is written by the victors, is a common saying used to describe the inequality of information available from different viewpoints of an issue. This idea holds true when it comes to the United State’s Constitution. For years, American students are taught all the positives of the document with little attention to the negatives. But those against the ratification of the Constitution, the Anti-federalists, had valid issues with the Constitution, some of which are still relevant almost 230 years in the future. The Constitution, legally speaking, shouldn’t even have been created. The delegates of the meeting now know as the Constitutional Committee had absolutely no power to create a new system of government, only to alter the current one. The Anti-Federalists had serious issues with the document without even glancing at the text of the Constitution. Which doesn’t mean there aren’t issues within the document. At the time of its drafting, the Constitution had no Bill of Rights. It outlined a government that gave more power to the federal government instead of the states’. Even the ratification process was changed with only nine …show more content…

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.” (Findley, Whitehill, and Smilie, 792) Quite frankly, whether you support the Constitution or not, you have to admit that it shouldn’t exist. The delegates of the Constitutional committee had more power than perhaps any other group of people in American history, and they were never supposed to have

Open Document