Explain Their Position On Adopting The Constitution In 1787
List the two groups and explain their position on adopting the Constitution in 1787. Why was this debate critical for both sides? What promises were made and kept as a result of the debates? EVALUATE: Would our lives be different if this debate had not taken place? Why or why not? The Constitutional Convention was an important part of the United States’ history and played a big role in shaping our history and also our present. The Constitution is important because it is what our country follows to be organized, fair, and in order. People who favored the Constitution along with a strong national government were called federalists. The Federalists were afraid that the United States wouldn’t stay united without the Constitution, so that
…show more content…
is why they supported it. People who opposed the constitution were called Antifederalists. The textbook says, “The Antifederalists believed that the proposed Constitution would protect neither the states' power nor the people's freedom”. The thought that having the Constitution would create a national government that was too strong and also that it would defeat the purpose of gaining independence from British rule and the Revolutionary War. The Constitutional Convention also was important because of the debate that took place there and how it affected the final decisions. This debate was important because it would be what caused the delegates from the states to decide whether or not the Constitution would be put into place. Also, in the Civics book, it says that at least 9 out of 13 states had to ratify the Constitution, so it was even more important for both sides to do well in the debate. There were also many promises that were made and kept as a result of the Federalists winning the debate and the Constitution being ratified. Some of these promises were the basic rights in the Bill of Rights, amendments to protect specific right, and also having the citizens as the best interest. Our lives would be very different today if the debate had not taken place because the Constitution might not have had compromises that helped the people instead of the government. In addition, the national legislature would be unfair towards some states. These are all ways of how the Constitutional Convention helped shape our country’s history and our life today.
-Revanth Vedhapudi
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, an important debate had to happen.
Some people in the States believed that the best way to come together as a country was by having a centralised federal government. These people, known as Federalists, supported the adoption of the Constitution. They produced the Federalist Papers to gain support. Their opponents, the Antifederalists, argued that a centralised government would turn into the same type of government from which they had just won independence. As the Constitution did not include citizen’s rights, a Bill of Rights was added after its ratification.
If these debates hadn’t happened, it is entirely possible that the individual states could have become separately operating entities, eventually dividing into several countries. The people living in those states may not have had the rights and opportunities granted to them by the development of the Constitution. Without the centralised government, the states may have fallen apart and not lasted any significant amount of time. There may not have been expansion past the thirteen original colonies. Native American nations might have still been in existence, and life would be very different from as it is now.
Hello
Karina,
I agree with your position on what would have happened if the debates had not took place and also agree with having a centralized government. I think that if there was no strong and centralized government, the thirteen colonies would have broken apart into different countries because of many taunting or challenging issues such slavery. The only part I don’t agree on is your opinion on the Native American tribes still existing. I don’t think this would be true because there were too many people taking over lots of land and the tribes would have eventually been “relocated”. Overall, you have many valid points, so I agree with you on what you have to say.
Sincerely,
Revanth Vedhapudi
is why they supported it. People who opposed the constitution were called Antifederalists. The textbook says, “The Antifederalists believed that the proposed Constitution would protect neither the states' power nor the people's freedom”. The thought that having the Constitution would create a national government that was too strong and also that it would defeat the purpose of gaining independence from British rule and the Revolutionary War. The Constitutional Convention also was important because of the debate that took place there and how it affected the final decisions. This debate was important because it would be what caused the delegates from the states to decide whether or not the Constitution would be put into place. Also, in the Civics book, it says that at least 9 out of 13 states had to ratify the Constitution, so it was even more important for both sides to do well in the debate. There were also many promises that were made and kept as a result of the Federalists winning the debate and the Constitution being ratified. Some of these promises were the basic rights in the Bill of Rights, amendments to protect specific right, and also having the citizens as the best interest. Our lives would be very different today if the debate had not taken place because the Constitution might not have had compromises that helped the people instead of the government. In addition, the national legislature would be unfair towards some states. These are all ways of how the Constitutional Convention helped shape our country’s history and our life today.
-Revanth Vedhapudi
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, an important debate had to happen.
Some people in the States believed that the best way to come together as a country was by having a centralised federal government. These people, known as Federalists, supported the adoption of the Constitution. They produced the Federalist Papers to gain support. Their opponents, the Antifederalists, argued that a centralised government would turn into the same type of government from which they had just won independence. As the Constitution did not include citizen’s rights, a Bill of Rights was added after its ratification.
If these debates hadn’t happened, it is entirely possible that the individual states could have become separately operating entities, eventually dividing into several countries. The people living in those states may not have had the rights and opportunities granted to them by the development of the Constitution. Without the centralised government, the states may have fallen apart and not lasted any significant amount of time. There may not have been expansion past the thirteen original colonies. Native American nations might have still been in existence, and life would be very different from as it is now.
Hello
Karina,
I agree with your position on what would have happened if the debates had not took place and also agree with having a centralized government. I think that if there was no strong and centralized government, the thirteen colonies would have broken apart into different countries because of many taunting or challenging issues such slavery. The only part I don’t agree on is your opinion on the Native American tribes still existing. I don’t think this would be true because there were too many people taking over lots of land and the tribes would have eventually been “relocated”. Overall, you have many valid points, so I agree with you on what you have to say.
Sincerely,
Revanth Vedhapudi