Richard Maier's Honest Men: Ratifying The Constitution

Following the making of the Constitution, James Madison brought forth the warning of political factions or parties as we know today in one of his many inputs into the Federalist Papers. As the Constitution was offered among the states to be ratified, two groups rose in effect of differing opinions on the document, and these two groups were known as the supporters, Federalists, and the

The Constitution had changes the United States greatly. The document, written in 1788, was a powerful representation of the government back then, and amazingly, it’s still in play today. During the 1700’s, the first political parties formed over disagreements in the government and the constitution. The two parties were the Federalists and Antifederalists. Federalists made up the people who felt that the stronger government was best for the country and supported the Constitution. The federalists had felt as if different “fiscal and monetary policies” were a weakness in the national economy. Also, the Federalists supported banking("Anti-Federalist vs Federalist"). Federalists wanted to fight for stronger governments, managing the country’s debt

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.

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

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 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 Anti-Federalist put up a long and hard fight, however, they were not as organized as the Federalists. While the Anti- Federalist had great concerns about the Constitution and National government, the Federalist had good responses to combat these concerns. The Federalist were and for the Constitution and feel the Article of Confederation were not worth ratifying, these should be scrapped altogether. They felt that the Articles limited the power of congress, because congress had to request cooperation from the states. Unlike the Anti-Federalist, the Federalist organized quickly, had ratifying conventions, and wrote the Federalist papers to rebut the Anti- Federalist arguments.

The Anti-Federalist party was made up of people who, for the most part, lived in the country. They were opposed to developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution, which, they claimed, threatened each free person’s liberites, until the authors included the Bill of Rights. (This granted individual rights of citizens. The Anti-Federalists wanted to write down these so that they could not be taken away from the people by the government like England had done.) Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power to prevent monarchies and dictatorships. Famous members of this party were Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Mercy Otis Warren, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and James Monroe. They favored the Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation had a few flaws: if a law was to pass, it would need a majority rule (9/13); it lacked a court system (nationally); and it was missing an executive branch. The Bill of Rights was appreciated because they wanted to make sure that individual rights could not be taken away. The Anti-Federalists may not have been a group that agreed with one another all the time, but as their opinions varied, more rights were thought of and protected. For example, one part of the group held the view that the sovereignty of states could be endangered

The ratification controversy pitted supporters of the Constitution, who claimed the name "Federalists," against a loosely organized group known as "Antifederalists." The Antifederalists denounced

In the late 1700’s a debate broke out about the Constitution and its ratification. The debate was between two groups of Americans, Federalists, who supported the ratification, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Federalists supported the constitution’s ratification because they wanted a strong government to rely on, however, Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because they wanted more individual power and a weaker central government. Anti-Federalists were Americans who opposed the Constitution and its ratification for various reasons including their fear of individual rights being lost.

Anti-Federalists- The other political party that emerged after the revolution that opposed a strong centralized government. The Anti-Federalists also opposed the ratification of the Constitution 1787. They supported the Articles of Confederation which gave little power to the government. The Anti-Federalists feared that a strong centralized government would turn into a repeat of the American Revolution. The Anti-Federalists had a large impact in how the Articles of Confederation was

Beeman, Richard. Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. New York: Random House Trade, 2009. Beeman tells an old story well and in a way that suggests cherished lessons for our own time.

The Federalists were the southern planters and those who involved in trade. The anti-federalists were the people who were showing interests in business but not the economy. The Federalists were the ones who wanted the ratification over the Constitution while the anti-federalists did not. After much debate, they were able to come to a compromise to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. When the new Constitution was drafted, it led the nation to a debate. People were shocked about the changes and wanted to amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of a tyranny, like how they were ruled in Britain. At this time, the Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the King of England. Thus, all their efforts will have gone to waste. As stated above, the Federalists were supporting the Constitution, which referred to the power between states and the government. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous than it seemed because the separation from the states and government protected the people from tyrannical rule. In the famous Federalist Papers No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and system of checks and balances would protect Americans from the tyranny. In paper No. 10, he wrote that there was no need to fear factions because there will not be enough power to form them. Hamilton defended that the Constitution is there to serve citizens’

The kind of government created as a result of the ratification of the United States Constitution was nearly unprecedented in its day, but this does not mean that the framers of the Constitution developed their particular form of social contract out of thin air. Instead, they drew from a long line of legal and social contracts and writings in order to develop a robust system of governance meant to protect the rights of the individual while maintaining a sufficiently strong federal government. Examining some of the most important documents and ideas that the framers drew on will serve to demonstrate how the United States Constitution represents the culmination of nearly five centuries worth of political and social thought.

Amidst the completion of the U.S. Constitution in 1788, when it had come time to ratify it, there was a general divide amongst the framers and the people. It seemed to split into two groups; the Federalists who favored the ratification and supported the expansion to a stronger and more