Constitutional Convention Of 1787 Dbq Essay

The foundation of the Constitution was a conflict based upon competing economic interests; interests of both the federalists and anti-federalists. “In the ratification it became manifest that the line of cleavage for and against the Constitution was between substantial personalty interests on the one hand and the small farming and debtor interests on the other hand.” According to Beard, the Federalists, the founders who supported a strong, centralized government

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 marked the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution. The ratification argument led to disagreements between the Federalists, who wanted to approve the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed the document. The latter believed that the new system forced by the Constitution failed to protect the individual rights of citizens and threatened liberties.

The book, The Summer of 1787, by David O. Stewart, is a detailed work of historical, fact-based non-fiction with a biographical touch. The book has three hundred and forty-nine pages and was copyrighted in 2007 after being published by Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, which is a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. David O. Stewart is qualified to write on the subject of the Constitutional Convention and all of the events surrounding it because of the extensive research that he has done, which is evidenced by his references to historical accounts in the text and his “Notes” section, which details many of the sources he used in his research. Also, David O. Stewart’s background qualifies him to write about this subject: He has practiced law in Washington D.C. for over 20 years and served as law clerk to several judges. The Summer of 1787 includes several features that add to the overall scope and quality of the book. First, it has illustrations of the delegates that are being described in the book along with other various illustrations added in. Second, it talks about, in more detail, one of the most important parts of government, the elector system. Next, it actually includes the Constitution that was written by these delegates in 1787 and amended so many times since.

Hamilton controlled the Federalist for twelve years. During that time, Hamilton thought the government should consist of wealthy men. These men would be capable of having a strong, stable, and independent economy. Hamilton had problems with the Republicans when he got the Congress to pass his plans on opening up a National Bank. This bank was to have a safe place to put their money, provide loans for businesses and the collection of taxes. Thomas Jefferson believed that Hamilton and his Federalist group were corrupted, because Hamilton was using his power and causing problems for the

The ratification of the U.S Constitution was a labor-intensive and stressful procedure. The reason for this is because the 13 states split into two different groups based on how they felt about the issue: the federalists and the anti-federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification of the U.S Constitution whereas the Anti-Federalists opposed it. The debate over this topic included reasons about power and political stances. The major arguments used by each side in the debates over the ratification for the U.S. Constitution were whether or not the central government should have more power, whether or not the country would be disunited after its approval, and whether or not natural rights will be in jeopardy.

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

The Constitutional Convention held in 1787 was a major step in America’s foundation. The compromises reached at this important meeting would end up shaping the country into what it is today. The Constitutional Convention was created in order the correct the Articles of Confederation which were deeply flawed. The meeting included the important founding fathers ranging from George Washington to Benjamin Franklin. After careful thought, the Articles of Confederation were soon scrapped and the delegates at the meeting began to create an entirely new government system. However, some states had their own private agendas. Different regions wanted different things and it reflected their ideals through their plans. This made coming to a compromise

In 1783 the American Revolution ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which gave the United States total independence. As a response to Britain's hated overpowering monarchy, the Articles of Confederation were put in place. The Articles gave each state large amounts of power and kept the central government weak. While at first the Article did preserve the independence, it was shown to be weak because it did not allow the federal government to tax or draft troops, leading to nothing getting done. In 1786 the people began to be affected by the Articles deficiency, so they rose up in Shays rebellion to try and make change themselves. While the uprising was eventually shut down in 1787, it was clear that the current government would not work. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in Philadelphia to come up with a new, better form of government. The Federalists wanted a strong central government while the Anti Federalists wanted to keep the weak government, to ensure that another situation like the one with Britain was impossible. The Anti Federalists had a stronger argument because of the way Britain treated the colonists under their absolute monarchy, how the colonists believed that they deserved individual rights, and the federal government would be unable to govern small everyday problems.

1) How does the U.S. Constitution reflect the political atmosphere of the United States in the late eighteenth century? What domestic and international concerns prompted the Constitutional Convention of 1787? Explain how these concerns were addressed by the debates of the framers, and what extent did the final document successfully meet the political challenges of the period?

Over the duration of conducting research the overlay of the essay will be describing the major benefit of the U.S Constitution. While several issues have been unresolved by the U.S Constitution such as the issues of the Articles of Confederation. The entire focus of the essay will describe the resolved issue that have been corrected in the constitution, while also describing some of the historical events that were caused the U.S constitution to change. The U.S constitution helped resolve issue and was a document that represent our nation as an independent nation after the revolutionary war.

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.

The last half of the 18th century was monumental for the United States. It is in this era that the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was pivotal in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.

When the founding fathers came together, they realized that they had important things to discuss. Truthfully because The Articles of Confederation had not been efficient enough for the national government. The Articles of Confederation left the national government without a judiciary and independent executive, leaving Congress with most of the power; but it was largely a creature of the states. This sparked conflicted amongst state which eventually lead to the government’s debt.