Pros And Cons Of Englistania And Virginia's Constitution

During the 1700’s, one of the most discussed topics, was the kind of government that should be incorporated into each state. Several men with skeptical beliefs and contradicting ideas, led to many (indirect) disputes about which route should be taken. Virginia and Pennsylvania’s constitutions were a hot topic during the era, they stimulated an intriguing matter amongst many politicians. From Thomas Paine to Carter Braxton’s writings, each individual had an important role arguing and making claims toward the type of government they found to be the most effective. Virginia’s constitution was considered to be a mixed government, while Pennsylvania’s constitution was a simple government. Each structure had men who praised it and men who critiqued it. Through their writings we find many pros and cons for each style of governing, as well as the different theories each individual had when it came to structuring a state’s constitution. We also gain an insight of what possible concerns came about during the time and what solutions they offered, if any were offered at all. The state of Pennsylvania was composed of a simple government during 1776. It was

Thomas Paine wrote, “the more simple anything is, the less liable it is to be disordered.” He also goes on to argue that if something is simple and disorder was to occur, it would be easier to repair since issues wouldn’t be as complex (in comparison to a mixed government). Later on, Paine continues and makes a connection between law and a king. He argues that in America, law is king. He says, “…let the crown, at the conclusion of the ceremony, be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.” Paine claims that just like a king, laws should not behold the virtue and power that rests among the people. Instead, the “crown”, or powers should be scattered to those who have the right; the people have power because of their natural