Ratifying The Constitution Dbq

Forming this new country was a tough process. There were several different ideas. After realizing that the country was too weak under the Articles of Confederation. In result, there came a new idea; which was to ratify the Constitution. The procedures for ratifying the new Constitution were as controversial as its contents. This is where the fight to ratify the constitution began. The Anti-Federalists had many central arguments against the adoption of the Constitution. The proponents, the Federalist proposed a better argument for defending the ratification of the new Constitution which caused them to prevail. The Anti-Federalist were those men who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. The Federalists were those who favored
They were property owners, creditors, and merchants. They believed that elites were the most fit to govern; feared “excessive democracy.” (Ginseberg, Lowi, and Weir 60). They favored a strong national government; believed in “filtration” so that only elites would obtain governmental power. The Federalists response was that a heterogeneous republic will be better at protecting liberty rather than a small homogeneous republic. They also argued that only a large republic can prevent majority tyranny. Majority tyranny is prevented by increasing the number of interests (factions) in society. (Ginseberg, Lowi, and Weir 63.) They also believed in constructing institutions with teeth in them. This is called separation of powers and federalism. Anti-Federalists leaders consist of Patrick Henry, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, George Clinton. They were usually small farmers, frontiersman, debtors, shopkeepers. They believed that government should be closer to the people; feared concentration of power in hands of the elites. Anti-Federalist believed that a strong central government might suppress the liberties of the people. They favored retention of power by state governments and protection of individual
They both believed in limited government, a government whose powers are defined and limited by a constitution. They differed on how to place those limits. The Anti-federalists favored limiting the powers granted to the national government in relation both to the states and to the people. They felt that the powers give to the national government should be confined to certain defined national objects. They felt if this didn't happen the national government would destroy, and hinder the power of the state government. The Anti-federalists also saw to it that a Bill of Rights to be added to the constitution to place limits on the government’s exercise of power over the citizenry. On the other hand, the Federalist favored a government that was constructed with broad powers. They were interested in a government that was able to fight against foes, guard against domestic strife, promote commerce, and expand the nations economy. The Anti-federalist believed some of this but just highly feared governmental power. The Federalist made a very important point. They stated that in order for the government to carry out these orders, they needed the necessary power to do so. They felt that the right way of controlling power abuse was not by depriving the government of power, but knowing that the governments power would be oversee by the Constitutions checks and