Essay about The Clashing Interests of The Founding Fathers

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

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.

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

This book tells the story of the Philadelphia convention, in the summer of 1787. Throughout, Stewart uses descriptive language to portray the delegates, both remembered —such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton— and forgotten —such as James Wilson and George Mason— in the turmoil of creating the United States constitution. It illustrates both the great conflicts and high-stake compromises that those delegates faced, all ultimately dominated by one inelegantly polarizing issue: slavery. With calculated endorsement by influential delegates such as Franklin and Washington, who

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.

A central government and individualism was debated in the writings of Patrick Henry, The Declaration of Independence, and The United States Constitution. Ideas such as unity, protection of rights, and establishing a successful future nation were discussed and the ultimate outcome would come to be a huge determination of how our country would be ran.

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

As said by John Adams; the Constitutional Convention as “the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever see.” Most of the delegates at the convention had already been risking their lives by being threatened to being hung as traitors by the British. They were very worried that their states reactions to their decision to abandon the Articles of Confederation and create a new one wouldn’t be very accepting. Making the states realize that they should accept the constitution was as hard as they thought. It

With the creation of the Articles remained the lack of a strong central authority to resolve disputes between the states. To organize the states for the collective good, including the organization of a militia, was crucial to the development of the Constitutional Convention (Hamilton et al., 2008). The aftermath of Shay’s Rebellion reinforced the fears of national leaders about the dangers of ineffective state governments and of popular democracy out of control. In the climate of economic turmoil and repressions, the Philadelphian convention was conned to prescribe solutions to the Articles of Confederation. Although the initial thought was instructing delegates to propose revisions for the Articles of Confederation, instead, they wrote an entirely new constitution instead (Hamilton et al., 2008)

The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.

The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals, but their opinions about government were different. Both parties had their own visions of the new Constitution and how it would support believes on how the government should be withheld. At this time the States had a very weak government with very limited power which was a disagreement that the Federalists and Anti-federalized butted heads on. The amount of power or the absence of power was the disagreement between these political parties. As in result, The Federalists and Anti-federalists argued on the forming of the New Constitution.

This essay is a review of the Decisions in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. The body of this work will highlight a few of the differences found in Collier and Collier’s Decision in Philadelphia (2007) and Middlekauff’s The Glorious Cause (2005) and paint a picture for the reason for the convention, the need for a change from the Articles of Confederation, as well as some of the key takeaways from the Constitution that impact us still today. The Decision in Philadelphia highlights well the overarching theme of compromise. Compromise was and still is the cornerstone to the government in the United States of America. This essay will showcase this theme over and over as it was critical to allow for the collective good to succeed. Webster’s dictionary defines compromise as the settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. Compromise is further defined as the blending qualities of different things, those different things were the ideals, principles, and values of the Constitution’s framers.

In the initial years of the United States a meeting of delegates appointed by the several states met for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. The result of this meeting was the creation of the U.S. Constitution that would soon become the ultimate directive for both Federal and State Governments. Since its birth it has been revised, amended, and ratified in order to solidify the allocation of power between the separate branches of government. Although this may be the case, distribution of the powers has been disputed ever since the formation of the Constitution. These political, legal, and quasi-legal constitutional disputes triggered civil unrest and led to explicit acts of opposition involving nullification and

Looking back in history (1781-1787) at the debate over ratification of the Constitution we can see that the making of the constitution was a long drawn out battle between the federalists and the Anti-Federalists. There were concerns as to the inherent weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, such as the lack of action during Shay’s Rebellion, the issue over taxation, as well as the problematic consensus required by all states to change any one of the Articles. There was a fear that if given too much power the executive leader would become like the king they had just fought a revolution to free themselves from. This fear of giving too much power to a centralized government was what made the Articles so weak. The purpose of this paper is

“In a word, it’s at it’s end, and unless a remedy is soon applied, anarchy and confusion will inevitably ensue” said Thomas Jefferson. There were many problems with the current government, so the gathering of the Constitutional Convention was needed for a cleansing and revising of the government. There were many challenges facing the Convention, including keeping the meeting a secret from the public and the current government, convincing the delegates to agree on issues, and finding knowledgeable and influential people who were enthusiastic about doing the work needed. The old government had be replaced so they had to try and get together to make something better and more effective central government