Preview

The Ratification of the Constitution

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
397 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Ratification of the Constitution
The Ratification of the Constitution In 1787, the Constitution was created to replace the Articles of Confederation, because it was felt that the Articles weren't sufficient for running the country. However, the Constitution was not very well liked by everyone . The constitution created was very much liked by the majority of the country. This included the farmers, the merchants, the mechanics, and other of the common people. However, there were those who were very important people in the revolution who felt that the Constitution would not work, most notably Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine, who felt they were the backbone of the revolution. Those who opposed the Constitution were deemed anti-federalists. This Constitution decreased the power of the states with less people in it, like Rhode Island... The anti-federalists, which also including George Mason, George Clinton, James Monroe, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Robert Yates, Samuel Chase, and Luther Martin, believed that a republican form of government could work on a national scale. They also did not feel that the rights of the individual were properly or sufficiently protected by the new Constitution. The Constitution that was created had a strong central government and weak state governments. The anti-federalists believed in weak central and strong state governments, as the way it was in The Articles of Confederation. They thought that if the Government got all of the power, they would lose their rights and freedoms. This makes sense, because if the people making the rules live relatively close to you, they will be able to judge better than a house of representatives or a president who is 1000 miles away. They also remembered that from their experiences as British colonists, a federal government can tax, and can tax the people highly. One more reason that they didn't like it is because it didn't contain a Bill of Rights, so it is hard to judge what rights this government is going to give

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    "A free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants......as that of the whole United States." (Brutus I) First of all, anti-federalists thought that a republic must be small and uniform to survive. The United States was a large country that had 1200 miles long and 200 miles inland, and it also had big population which had wide range of religions and races. They thought if a national government had a strong power that would insulate from the people and would abuse the power to deprive the powers belonged to the states. For instance, the legislature of the U.S had great and uncontroulable powers: the Congress would tax heavily from the states and regulate the inter-states trade; the Supreme Court would overrule state courts; and the president would come to raise and support large armies. Brutus noted Article I, Sec. 8 implied powers "the necessary and proper." It meant that the states reserved certain powers, and considerable powers could be added. Also, a strong central government would threaten the rights of common people. Because the Constitution was created by…

    • 1009 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    They also felt as if the Union to last there must be a stronger central government. Lastly they wanted the central government to have power that they lacked in the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalists that the constitution made the government have too much power. Because the Constitution was making the Central government too strong, the Anti-federalists feared that the states would have no power. They also feared that if the president was elected again, he may abuse the power and act like a king. The federalists would also have no Bill of Rights, and many state constitutions had only one. Later the federalists promised to add the Bill of Rights if the Anti-federalists voted for the Constitution. Both the federalists and the Anti-Federalists gave strong points on why people should or should not vote for the…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Articles of Confederation were written to govern the interaction of the thirteen original states after winning independence from Great Britain in 1776. They proved to be ineffective so in 1787 the US Constitution was adopted to replace the Articles of…

    • 841 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many people believed that the Constitution was a great idea! The people who supported the constitution were called Federalists. The Federalists included Alexander Hamilton, James Wison, John Jay, John Marshall, James Madison, John Dickinson, and Roger Sherman. Federalists thought that the…

    • 705 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    I think Anti federalist was more convincing because, Anti-Federalists fight that the Constitution gave lot more ability to the federal government, although speaking too much control away from state and local governments. Many perceive that the federal government would be too long removed to represent the ordinary citizen. Anti-Federalists scared that the nation was too large for the national government to answer to the anxieties of people on a state and local basis. The Anti-Federalists were also feared that the real text of the Constitution did not consist of a bill of rights.…

    • 154 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Founders’ perceptions were that America was weak and de-centralized. They created a weak, confederal government designed to protect people’s liberties by being to small to be a threat, but it was too small to handle national problems. The differences between the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution are that one, the US Constitution has a Bill of Rights, the power of the president is addressed and the separation of the branches. This changed occurred to make the government stronger and address the nation’s problems. The Anti-Federalists were a large group who didn’t like the Constitution but didn’t know what they wanted yet and they contributed to the branches. The Federalist were defenders of the constitution and they contributed to the bill of…

    • 446 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 after several failed attempts of creating a set of laws that was to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced because it caused many issues between the states and the federal government. The states had too much independence, while the federal government had little power over them. In 1789, delegates from each state, excluding Rhode Island, met in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention to create the new Constitution. Their plan was to create a government with increased federal authority that also protected the basic rights of American citizens.…

    • 903 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Dbq Anti Federalists

    • 477 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Anti-Federalist had concerns almost immediately after its release. One of the concerns was how much power would be held by Congress. There was a clause in the Constitution that allowed Congress to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into ongoing powers. The Anti-Federalists often argued that this would allow the national government to create any law it wished. Importantly they did not want laws that would be harmful and unrepresentative for the people. In addition, the Constitution contained a supremacy clause that recognized the national government as the final arbiter of its disputes for the state which did not seem to be a fair option for the Anti-Federalists. This clause caused the anti-Federalists to believe that states and their citizens would be at the mercy of the national…

    • 477 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Their main concerns included the power that the government held and the natural rights that the people could have. The Constitution was thought to be “radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished… The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press … are rendered insecure” (Henry 1). Not only were they afraid of falling into another monarchy, they also believed that the rights of each man would be terminated after the Constitution is put into effect. Anti-federalists doubted the effect of the Constitution in the future due to their stances on natural rights for the people and the control that the national government had over the…

    • 271 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the constitution. They just wanted to amend the articles. The Anti-Federalists thought that the constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of state governments. It was believed that because of the Necessary and Proper Clause, congress had too much power, and the executive branch also held too much power. Thomas Jefferson was an example of an Anti-Federalist.…

    • 458 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Then also The Articles of Confederation was used as the United State’s first constitution, and four years later it was in use on March 1, 1781. And it was made so the states could remain in power and independent, With the Congress serving as a last resort to appeal disputes. Also the Congress was given the power to make treaties and alliances with other groups/people, And to continue maintaining the armed forces and coin money. However In 1787, The Constitutional Convention was created for the creation of new federal laws, The most likely cause of the Constitutional Convention to be made was because of the ability to levy taxes and regulate trade. Later…

    • 144 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    James Madison was one of the founding father and fourth president of United States. Madison draft most of the US constitution and all of the Bill of Rights and later he was referred as “Father of Constitution.” He wrote federalist 10 in late 1700s which played influencing role in ratification of the constitution. In his federalist #10 he addresses his vision concerning the constitution and focuses on the issue of small country is good or bad through his examination of factions. Madison defines faction as a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of others citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Articles of Confederation

    • 2029 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The Articles of Confederation was, in a sense, the first United States constitution. It was adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777 and later ratified by all 13 original states on March 1, 1781. The Constitution later replaced the Articles when it was ratified by New Hampshire on June 21, 1788. The two documents have a lot in common, such as being established by the same people, both served to maintain a free government, both referred to the nation as the United States of America, both were the laws of the United States government, and both gave the states the power to regulate commerce, tax citizens, make laws, and provide for a common defense. However, when one looks at the details, they differ much more than they resemble each other. Comparing them can give us true insight as to what the Framers found important in 1781, and what they reconsidered and changed by 1788. The fundamental difference between the Articles and the Constitution is the fact that the Articles made no provision for the new federal government to exercise any power over the individual states, especially when it came to collecting taxes from the states, imposing laws that would apply to the states, and organizing a federal army for which the states would provide soldiers. It can be fairly concluded that the Articles of Confederation gave power to the states and the Constitution gave power to the federal government to regulate those states. This is what ultimately made the Constitution a necessity and why it is still in place today.…

    • 2029 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed by an all to dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.…

    • 1000 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The people who supported the new Constitution, the Federalists, began to publish articles supporting ratification. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as The Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change (http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_ratifyingconstitution.htm). President George Washington wrote a letter to John Jay on August 1, 1786. In this letter Washington agrees with Jay’s criticism of the Articles of Confederation and says “we have errors to correct. We have probably had to good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation…” The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected. He complained that the thirteen “disunited states” could never agree. He also suggest that human nature being what it was, America needed a stronger, less democratic national government (doc.3).…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays