In the year 1787 a fierce debate over the ratification of the Constitution took place in the United States. The young nation suffered from a government too weak to handle its problems but with citizens wary and skeptical of strong, central governments. This is where the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists took place, the debate that would set American ideals into stone with the ratification of the Constitution and the later-added Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed in a stronger central government to help overcome the struggles the fledgling nation faced while the Anti-federalists believed that the Constitution did not do enough to secure the rights of the people from a tyranny not unlike that of King George’s. Throughout this …show more content…
Merchants couldn’t trade between states because of a lack of common currency,and the people feared of another war with other colonial powers who could clearly see their internal weakness. Thomas R. Frazier in his article in The Massachusetts Sentinel argued, “Let us look and behold the distresses which prevail in every part of our country… the melancholy faces of our working people… our ships rotting in the harbors… the insults that are offered to the American name and character in every court in Europe… and say that we do not require a new, a protecting, and efficient federal government if you can,” (Doc. 1) Frazier expresses the deep feeling of dissatisfaction among the American people who suffer the most from these weaknesses of government while highlighting exactly where these changes are needed and why. All of these things the Federalists recognized and sought to change for the …show more content…
Anti-federalists feared that this new government would closely resemble the tyranny of King George which the colonies had originally gone to war with for independence. This was expressed clearly by the delegate Patrick Henry in a speech he made in which he stated, “...out rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished… The rights of the conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press… are rendered insecure,” (Doc. 4). While these fears were certainly not unfounded it was clear that there were provisions that could be made to fully protect the rights of the people. This was done by the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution which rendered to the most prominent Anti-federalist argument moot. Jonathan Elliot expressed this sentiment when he stated, “...certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth,” (Doc.
People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government
Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.
The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.
In 1787, the Constitution was written and submitted for ratification by the 13 states, but not everyone agreed with it. There were two groups of though. One was the Anti-federalists, who opposed the Constitution and the other group were the Federalists, who supported it. The Anti-federalists were people who supported the Articles of Confederation because they were doing well under them. They were mostly poor people from rural areas and were supported by the big states. They believed that the Constitution did not secure their rights and gave the central government too much power. The Federalists were mostly the wealthy people who lived in or near city areas and were supported by the smaller states. They believed that the separation of
The Constitution has been operative since 1789 after the ratification of nine states (American Vision and Values, Page 52). Today many question the relevancy of a document 222 years old to our society. The Founders created a governmental framework, defining three branches and giving powers to the government and others to the states. It also guarantees the rights of the people. It took two and one-half years for the 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution. This ratification period was one of great debate and produced a series of essays complied into The Federalist. Authored by John Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay during the ratification debate in New York, they tried to get public support for the Constitution. Thus began the first
The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however
The foundation of a Nation has gone through the occupation from former Native Americans, Freedom of Religion that Pilgrims sought for. Towards the Inhabitants of the American Colonists. Fast forward after the American Revolution. Now that America has broken away from Britain, there was a new sense of freedom and opinions on how the nation must need a republic and form a republic. An upcoming group called the Federalists will clash with the anti- federalists of what must the order of government should be involved with running the country. James Madison who was a federalists and Patrick Henry an Anti-federalists had both given strong opinions on a new Proposition, of taking charge and forming a country that will run fairly and not dominating as a monarch. Many are familiar with the Bill of Rights that is a document listing the protection of every natural born citizen’s freedom. So the two will discuss their view of the constitution.
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States was neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held between those who supported the Constitution, the Federalists, and those who were against it, the Anti-Federalists. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a centralized republic. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect the Constitution would have on state power, the power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create, and the issue of a standing army. One of the most important concerns of the
On September 28, 1787, after three days of bitter debate, the Confederation Congress sent the Constitution to the states with neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. This action, a compromise engineered by Federalist members, disposed of the argument that the convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people. The state legislatures' decisions to hold ratifying conventions confirmed the Constitution's legitimacy.
The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to
(Document 2) This quote illustrates that there was no way to prevent the branches (executive, judicial, legislative) from abusing their powers. The anti-federalists feared what this strong central government would become. Reasonably, if the constitution was ratified, the federalists would have endless control. The anti federalists feared the government would become a monarchy. Perhaps the biggest argument was mentioned in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, “it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth….powers not expressly delegated by the constitution… are reserved to several states.” (Document 6) This quote states that the powers that were not given to the original constitution would now be given to the states. Basically, if there was any right or law not originally in the constitution the states were given the right to adjust and look after it.
Those who opposed the centralization of government were the Anti-Federalists, they knew that the system would eventually pose a threat to the rights of the people. There were several issues that were cause for concern to the Anti-Federalists when the Constitution was proposed. These issues were the sole power of taxation, the lack of protection of freedoms, the lack of representation, the dissolving of the state’s powers, and above
The real dilemma the Anti-Federalists had with the constitution, when the constitution was signed it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect citizen’s rights. The Anti- Federalist feared a national government would strip citizens of their individual rights. The Anti-Federalists did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary War.
There are several watersheds in the history of United States, of which have all shaped the future of the country in a way they may have never imagined. This paper will focus on the discussion on the following three topics: The ratification of the constitution in 1787 limits the democratic freedoms that American citizens had gained right after the Revolutionary War; the New Deal Coalition and policies formed by the President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) that prevents the country from becoming a socialist stave and saves the democratic and capitalist system; and the G.I Bill compensated the war veterans leading to the emergence of the American middle class.
Therefore the Constitution of the United States is no longer completely viable to our modern day society and needs to be modified to our current needs, improve protections that all humans and citizens should have, and should be restructured to not have as many loopholes that politicians have become avid in taking, to get into power.