More handpicked essays just for you.
The american constitution: its origins and development summary
The american constitution: its origins and development summary
Development of the American constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
North Carolina’s Ratification of the Federal Constitution: A Tale of Trials and Triumphs Frustration was mounting. As he sat in the state’s ratifying convention and listened to the roll call of their membership, William Richardson Davie worried that his federalist movement in the state of North Carolina would die a slow and agonizing death before him. Davie, an ardent proponent of federalism and its promotion of a strong national and central government, had spent nearly a year arguing and debating the necessity and importance of ratifying the newly proposed federal Constitution. One by one, as the names were read aloud, Davie realized the composition of the convention’s membership favored those who opposed the federal Constitution. A year earlier, during the months of May through September, 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen states (Rhode Island chose not to attend) met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to discuss the current governing document, the Articles of Confederation. Enacted in March 1781, the Articles of Confederation was an agreement which allowed for the separate and independent thirteen states to establish the United States of America as a confederation - or an association - of the thirteen sovereign states. With the ratification of the Articles, the United States became, not a government, but rather a “firm league of friendship.” This amalgamation of sovereign states attempted, through the Articles, to ensure unity and strength in numbers during the American Revolutionary War, but with its lack of power and authority, it succeeded in creating a weak and ineffectual central government. For Davie and the other delegates meeting in Philadelphia, the intent had been to deliberate over the Articles’ inadequac... ... middle of paper ... ...t with the extension of individual liberty and states’ rights. Federalist were also concerned with other issues, for instance, public debt and the inability of the state to repay it; limited commerce and private industry; and the fact that Congress under the Articles of Confederation could do little to address any of these issues. William Davie knew that with the unfortunate and unequal number of Federalist and Antifederalist present at the ratifying convention, he would have to take a prominent role in defending the actions taken in Philadelphia the previous year. Since the Federalist consisted of only thirty-one percent of the convention’s membership, Davie shouldered the burden of defending the Constitution and upholding the Federalist cause. Thus began two weeks of debate beginning with the initial language of the Constitution’s preamble: “We the People…”
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
The thirteen states formed a Confederation referred to as the “league of friendship” in order to find a solution for common problems such as foreign affairs.The Articles of Confederation was the nation’s first Constitution. The articles created a loose Confederation of independent states that gave limited powers to the central government. Each state would have one vote in the house of Congress, no matter the size of the population. Members of the one-house Congress, such as Pennsylvania, agreed that the new government should be a unicameral legislature, without an executive branch or a separate judiciary. Under the articles, there wasn’t a strong independent executive. There wasn’t any judicial branch but Congress had the authority to arbitrate disputes between states. Congress was responsible for conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other lesser functions. But the articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws. Because of this, the central government had to request donations from the states to finance its operations and raise armed forces.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
The Articles of Confederation was America’s first constitution. The Articles of Confederation failed to create a strong central government, however. With the demise of the states in sight, the need for a stronger and more structured central government became apparent. An invitation was sent to all thirteen states in February 1787 by the Confederation Congress to resolve the matter. The events that took place over the next several months would create the United States Constitution. Going down in history as a revolutionary form of government, the U.S. Constitution would give life to a country that is still running strong over 200 years later.
The essay under critical analysis is entitled, “Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” written by Gary B. Nash. This analytical essay consumes the fourth chapter of the book Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, edited by Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, and Ray Raphael. His essay, along with the twenty-one other accounts in the book depicting lesser-known individuals, whose contributions in securing independence from Great Britain and creating a new government in America rival that of the nation’s more notorious and beloved founders, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Dr. Nash focuses his efforts on Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus of the 1770’s and 80’s and the lasting influences of the 1776 constitution it created within American politics as well as several nations around the world. Within his analysis and interpretation of Pennsylvanian politics during the American Revolution, Dr. Nash utilizes a pro-whiggish, radically sympathetic stance to assert the Radical Caucus’ remarkable ability to gain support from and bestow power upon the common working man, take political power from conservatives within Pennsylvania’s public offices, and revolutionize democratic thought through their landmark reformations of the state’s constitution. Respecting the fact that Dr. Nash’s position on this subject required extensive research through first hand accounts, pamphlets, newspapers and the analysis of countless preserved records, indicates that the account he has given is very credible. Complying with his presentation of facts and the significance of the topic within early American history has prevented a well-rounded counter-argument ...
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
The delegates who had made their way to Philadelphia to attend the Constitutional Convention had dealt with several issues prior to their coming to Pennsylvania in 1787. Just four years prior to the Convention, The Paris Peace Treaty with Britain was agreed upon and signed with the assistance of Benjamin Franklin as America’s first ambassador. Only months, before the convention was underway in February of 1787, Shays rebellion had started and would cause for issues. This conflict however, would be one of the major reason why the convention would come together to look at the Articles of...
During 1787 and 1788 there were quite a few debates over the ratification of the United States Constitution. The issues disputed are outlined and explored in the Federalist Papers, an assortment of letters and essays, often published under pseudonyms, which emerged in a variety of publications after the Constitution was presented to the public. Those who supported the Constitution were Federalists, and those who opposed were Anti-Federalists. Their deliberations concerned several main issues.
The Articles of Confederation set up a government that consisted of a one house body of delegates, with each state having a single vote, acting collectively, could make decisions on certain issues that affected all states. There was no president or judiciary so any decision required nine of the thirteen states’ votes. At this point in time the United States of America ... ... middle of paper ... ... o consider the charms of liberty as imaginary and delusive.”
All of the topics discussed in these essays are very relevant to their respective causes. They are all backed up with valid information and examples. These essay's were written by very respectable men and show much insight on the subject of whether or not the Constitution should be ratified. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very opposing views, but used some of the same topics to support their point of views.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
The debate between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists is important because it provides us insight on how the United States Constitution was built and how it was changed. A reason why this debate is so important to understand is because there are people today who don’t agree with the government having so much power. Once one understands what started the disagreement between the two groups of politicians, one will see how both sides sealed the deal for our constitution that we still follow today. I have decided to speak about the Anti-Federalists first because this group of men stood out to me as being very intelligent, creative and brave but unfortunately their plan to help Americans wasn’t successful. Patrick Henry and George Mason, some of the few influential figures, were all about “supporting the American needs”. Originally called the “Federalists” in 1781, they were the first American National Government called the Articles of Confederation, which gave all thirteen states’ government more authority and freedom. The Federalists main concerns were to make sure Americans kept their liberty and states become one Union. The Anti-Federalists main concerns were to make sure Americans had their freedom but have separate Unions. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were different,
The meeting in Philadelphia was successful, it is known as the Constitutional Conventional. James Madison went to the
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.