There is always a purpose for papers such as these, and the purpose here was to allay the fears of the people; the fear that this new Constitution wouldn’t work, the fear that there was no solution to the political instability the Articles of Confederation had, and the fear that the government would be too strong or controlling. The political instability at the time scared people because factions, (groups with common political interests that forced their opinions on others while disregarding…
A newly developed constitution brought upon adverse opinions as to its “new republic form being as enshrined” as well as it being a “danger”. Both oppositional and approval views were discussed within Madison Federalist No. 10 and Patrick Henry’s Speech against Ratification.…
There was opposition to the constitution because many mainly the anti-federalists believed it would turn into tyranny and everything that happened in the American Revolution and there steps towards a democracy would end and it would become like Britain. Therefore the war would mean nothing and democracy would not happen, the government would take over.…
There was a definite divide between supporters and opponents. The opponents did not reject the Articles. Many opponents feared that the Constitution is undemocratic and that it could be very oppressive overall. There were controversies about the Constitution and how it failed to address…
The writing of the U.S Constitution generated many concerns over the amount of power to be allowed in the Federal Government. Political parties of Federalists and Antifederalists formed, sparking debate over the issue. As Federalists supported the proposed U.S Constitution, Antifederalists supported the government formed under the Articles of Confederation. Federalists felt that a strong central government would give protection to public and private credit. Many large landowners, judges, lawyers, leading clergymen, political figures, and merchants were in favor of ratifying the U.S Constitution. James Madison writes in Federalist Papers #10, “Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and public of personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable” (Doc. A). Congressmen such as Madison strongly supported a stronger Federal Government. The existing government under the Articles of Confederation needed to be altered to ensure more control over the states. Federalists believed that if change wasn’t made the nation would fail. “Either the…
Rawlin Lowndes’ speech to the South Carolina House of Representatives debating the adoption of the Federal constitution on January 17, 17888 was a plea to save the Confederation. He wanted to add to it, not destroy it. Unfortunately, Lowndes did not change the mind of most Americans.…
In the year 1787, early America, officials and delegates came together to form a constitution that would restore the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the attempt at creating a government for the newly independent America. But, it soon became clear that the document was not strong enough to govern America. Therefore, delegates who came to be known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists issued major arguments on the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Federalists were individuals who wished to unify the 13 states in negotiation, and anti-federalists were individuals who wanted a weaker central government. George Washington and the federalists argued that a stronger central government would accommodate everyone including farmers and merchants. Meanwhile, the leader of the anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, reasoned that the development of this constitution may threaten the rights of people in the states. While the federalists and anti-federalists were arguing over how much power the government should hold, they eventually made compromises and ratified the U.S. Constitution. With these compromises the delegated created a constitution that still governs us to this day.…
The states however were not satisfied if the requirements would be presented to them completely. For the most part some states led by George Mason from Virginia requested and enforced a Bill of Rights to be ratified before the final document was galvanized. Ratification for the Bill of Rights would prove crucial strain for the US Constitution simply because it would set thickened safeguards for citizens and protect rights of those accused of criminal infringements (O 'Connor and Sabato 2009, pg. 57). Enacted into law, the new Constitution was ratified and enacted. Everyone was not pleasant entirely with it. Benjamin Franklin…
The most significant being its lack of a Bill of Rights. This is an example of how material interests outweigh ideologies of the delegates. The new system of government was drastically different from the former, it was given significantly more power and took key powers away from the state governments in order to create a more strengthened federal system. The people concerned that this new Constitution would enable the government to infringe on these rights without any consideration. The lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution was one of the key reasons why George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, he wrote, “ The Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security ……
The Anti-Federalists believed that a strong state government was needed because if you have a strong central government than the people’s rights will not be ensured. (Doc. 4) Patrick Henry opposed the ratification of The Constitution because he believed that without it containing the Bill of Rights it would not allow the people have their natural rights. Anti-Federalist didn’t want to have a stronger national government because it could destroy the liberties of America that have been won during the Revolutionary…
People didnt want a Constitution and believed that things were just fine the way they were and everything should be left alone. In Document 2 we see that Mercy Otis Warren was an opponent. He had fear that the Constitution would threaten the rights of conscience and liberty of press. Patrick Henry was also against ratifying the Constitution. In Document 4, he says that a Constitution would endanger the rights and privileges that the people had and they would lose sovereignty, the freedom from an external control. In Document 5, Amos Singletree also opposed the ratification of the Constitution. But he doesn’t only fear the possible threat of people’s rights, he, being poor, was afraid that only rich learned men would be able to have power, and will have total rule over the poor…
This article is explaining the author Walter William’s opinion on why the Bill of Rights were written. He states that they were written because “Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights.” The article also explained that the Amendments within the Bill of Rights were written because the “Government was the enemy of the people.” Even though the government was the “enemy” it was still needed to provided the State's protection.Others think that the Bill of Rights were “unnecessary and dangerous.” One of the individuals that felt it was unnecessary and dangerous was Alexander Hamilton, he felt that the government should have more power than the States.…
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).…
This is an important moment for delegates to decide whether or not to ratify The Constitution. This is an important moment in our countries history because the delegates are deciding how the government is going to work.Why we have created this document is because the Articles of Confederation aren't working, and people think that the constitution are not going to work either.The proposed will give us Constitution nothing but failure. The Constitution shouldn't be ratified because this form of government has never been tried, even by Great Britain, and it could destroy the country a lot worse then the Articles of Confederation, it not only will do that but, even with the risk, we will have all branches of government to be filled with the wealthy elite class of people. And for these reasons, I think we shouldn't ratify the Constitution.…
Even before the Constitution was ratified, strong argument were made by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers urging the inclusion of a federal form of government to replace the failed confederation. In Federalist Paper No. 9 Hamilton states, "This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is s kind of assemblage of societies that constitutes a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, until they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of a united body" (Usinfo.state.gov). The people of the United States needed a central government that was capable of holding certain powers over the states.…