The Constitutional Convention And Ratification Debate

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

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 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.

55 delegates of twelve states wrote the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 and in 1788 the states ratified it. That gathering at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall brought nearly all of the nation’s most prominent men together, including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and George Washington. Several of the men appointed had records of service in the army and in the courts and others were experienced in colonial and state government. When Thomas Jefferson found out who had been appointed he wrote “It is really an assembly of demigods” to John Adams. That summer in Philadelphia, the men, drew out a document defining the distinct powers for the the president, the federal courts and the Congress. This division of authority that was established is known as the principle of separation of powers, and it ensures that none of the branches of government can overstep their boundaries.

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.

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

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

In May 1787, the Founding Fathers, who were made up of 55 delegates from one of the 13 states besides Rhode Island, met in Philadelphia for what would come to be called the Constitutional Convention [BRE]. When they met they intended to fix the consitution that was already in place, which was called the Articles of Confederation. This document had many weaknesses which ultimatly led to its downfall: it only had a legislative branch, so it could not hold trials or enforce laws, it could not raise taxes (it was able to raise money, however to do this the legislative branch had to ask the states for funds), it could not draft an army, so the federal government would have to use state militia, it could not control interstate or foreign commmerce,

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 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 Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address the many problems about the way the United States was governing its people, which was operated under the Articles of Confederation. Among the 55 delegates were 13 colonies who attended the convention to address the many issues that the United States of America were facing. The delegates consisted of wealthy Federalists who fought a strong central government and favored ratifying the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were less fortunate and feared losing their power to the national government. In this essay, I will be discussing why the Constitution was created, what major arguments arose, and the debates over ratifying the constitution.

The Second Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and took place in 1787. Representatives from each state gathered to discuss how the Articles of Confederation were to be amended. Several documents were debated on and put into effect on this day. Many of representatives of the states had written their own plans for the government. Not one plan was followed, but the delegates came to a compromise that they could agree on. Here, the United States’ current Constitution was signed. It has been modified as the years pass, but this was the foundation of America’s current constitution. Delegates at the Second Constitutional Convention had many concerns about the government. The states did not want a dominating national government,

Agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention stipulating that each slave was to be counted as ⅗ of a person for purposes of determining population for representation in US House of Representatives

During the beginning of the United States, many changes were brought upon the government, the most prominent one being the Constitution. When America had just been founded, the first government put into place was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation created a weak central government by providing more power to the states and their people. Quickly discovering the articles were unable to provide a strong government for the United States, the Constitutional Convention was created to compose a new government system. Together, the Constitutional Convention created the United States Constitution. The Constitution used checks and balances to ensure none of the three branches of government abused their power. Eventually, the

Pluralist theory views politics and decision making as a competitive phenomenon where different groups and individuals have different views and that there is no single elite group that exercises influence (Davis & Go, 2009). The theory holds that power is relatively broadly distributed among different interest groups. These groups hold different views of the same aspect and compete with each other for