Essay Arguments Against Ratifying The Constitution

1000 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: What arguement did patrick henry have towards the us constitution

The U.S Constitution is recognized as a document that secures basic rights for citizens and structures the American national government. Before the Constitution, the states had all the power and the national government was very weak. Therefore, the creation of the Constitution was necessary to grant the national government power. Even though, the Constitution was signed in 1787, there was still debate in that the Constitution gave the national government too much power. Some of the individuals whom opposed the Constitution where Patrick Henry and George Mason. Patrick Henry became the leader of the opponents, because of his strong legal and rhetoric skills. On the other hand, George Mason was a patriot during the American Revolution, whom believed in the inalienable rights of the people. These two man were important figures that argued the dangers ratifying the Constitution would bring and that the Constitution would give too much power to the national government. …show more content…

The article “Arguments against Ratification at the Virginia Convention” (1788) was written in a time where the states were debating if the states should ratify the constitution. The U.S. Constitution went through a period of being drafted and proposed in 1787 to being ratified in 1789. During this period, there was a strong debate on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. During these conventions, there where group of people who were in favor of the Constitution and believed that the Constitution was necessary because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. On the other hand, there was a group of people who opposed the Constitution and wanted to continue with the Articles of Confederation. For that reason, modifications to the Constitution had to be made so that the people would accept the ratification of the

Show More
Related

  • Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

    348 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Constitution

    1110 Words  | 3 Pages

    After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the

    Read More

  • National Salvation V. Counter revolution

    613 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the American Revolution, the colonists were completely resentful towards their British 'king'. They yearned for their own government, and to finally set themselves apart from George III's rule and his legislation. When the Articles of Confederation were mandated, the expectation was to provide the colonies with a stable government. The Articles were then replaced by the Constitution, which had corresponding values. Essentially the document was written to salvage and improve the new government. The Constitution did many positive things for the nation, and was the perfect remedy for the failures of of the Articles. However, it is manifest that the authors of the document were not as honorable as they may have been assumed to be. How they drafted the document and the bias they have put into it is still greatly effects us. The Constitution is a counter-revolution because it contradicts the fails of the Articles, and is evident that some authors had more self-beneficial and narrow mindsets.

    Read More

  • Why We Shouldn't Abandon The Constitution of the United States

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    The above statement is somewhat mind-boggling. It is something that a revolutionist might have coined over 200 years ago and it leaves much to the imagination. It is about as close to being treasonous as one could get without actually committing the crime. The former Vice-President Albert Gore once stated that "the constitution was a living breathing document, open to change". His statement was quite controversial and it definitely created a stir with the patriot-cult crowd. Why would anyone want to scrap the entire Constitution of the United States of America? Has someone come up with a more impressive document that better signifies what this country is all about?

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On The 14th Amendment

    1151 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout time there have been many amendments to the United States Constitution. Some have had little to no effect on the population. One amendment that this writer will take a look at is the Fourteenth Amendment. The wording of the amendment has been debated here recently but bottom line it abolished slavery. This amendment also made an attempt to equalize everyone that is born here in America or naturalized. The ripple effect of this change to the constitution is still being felt today. It is hard to imagine living in a world where the African American community was not considered equal to the white man. A ground breaking distinction in the language written out in the document was that of it applying on the federal level as well as the state jurisdiction. This is especially important as we see the civil union marriages have conflict

    Read More

  • James Madison and the Federalist Papers

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    On September 17, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention sent their new constitution to the states for ratification. The Federalists highly approved of the Constitution because it allowed for a more central and powerful government that was previously undermined under the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalists, however, didn’t want a powerful central government, but, instead, powerful state governments; in response to the Constitution, many Anti-Federalists began writing essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it. In retaliation to the Anti-Federalists attempt at getting states to not ratify the Constitution, many Federalists developed a group of essays known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the ratification of the new law system.

    Read More

  • Articles Of Confederation Dbq Analysis

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in

    Read More

  • Federalist Alexander Hamilton

    672 Words  | 2 Pages

    Federalists such as Hamilton supported ratification. But Anti-Federalists, who feared that the document gave too much power to the federal government, worked to convince the states to reject it. Hamilton believed that the ratification was necessary because giving more power to the central government was essential for the nation's survival. In The Federalist Papers Hamilton sets the stage for those that would follow, entitling that "The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty." The essay...

    Read More

  • The Ratification of the United States Constitution

    961 Words  | 2 Pages

    People debated on the illegality of the Constitution’s formation. Those who were involved in the public debate about the Constitution considered the creation of the document as an illegal act. Some Anti-Federalists believed that the men sent to the constitutional convention had surpassed the limits of the assignment originally given to them, which was to modestly adjust the Articles of Confederation. Federalists disputed that the articles needed to be eliminated rath...

    Read More

  • Federalists and Anti-Federalists

    1659 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.

    Read More

  • Essay On Ratification Of The Constitution

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Constitution is the foundation of our county it represents liberty and justice for all. We are able to live freely and do, as we desire because of the constitution. The constitution was, signed September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It took time and many debates were held before an agreement was achieved in both the drafting and ratification of the constitution. These disagreements came with several compromises before the constitution was fully ratified on May 29, 1790, with Rhode Island being the last and the thirteenth. The First, challenge was the Articles of Confederation; it was a sort of a draft of the Constitution but was weak and inadequate. Second, obstacle was the Anti-Federalists fight for more

    Read More

  • Should The Constitution Be Changed Essay

    1452 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.

    Read More

  • American Revolution and its Aftermath

    1157 Words  | 3 Pages

    The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.

    Read More

  • Has the U.S. Lived up to its Founding Principles?

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...

    Read More

  • Comparing the Philosophy and Presidency of Jackson and Jefferson

    1228 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...uestioned, overall, the Constitution of the United States was their foundation of what they stood for, and was used to enforce the rights of men against the tyrannical aristocracy that resembled the unjust monarchy of Britain from which they fled. The concepts and ideals of these two men were a giant stepping stone to the democratic government that rules America today.

    Read More

More about Essay Arguments Against Ratifying The Constitution

Open Document