The Rartifiation of the Us Constitution
Question: What were the major arguments used by each side (the supporters and the opponents) in the debates over the ratification of the U.S Constitution? In the year 1787, early America, officials and delegates came together to form a constitution that would restore the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the attempt at creating a government for the newly independent America. But, it soon became clear that the document was not strong enough to govern America. Therefore, delegates who came to be known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists issued major arguments on the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Federalists were individuals who wished to unify the 13 states in negotiation, and anti-federalists were individuals who wanted a weaker central government. George Washington and the federalists argued that a stronger central government would accommodate everyone including farmers and merchants. Meanwhile, the leader of the anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, reasoned that the development of this constitution may threaten the rights of people in the states. While the federalists and anti-federalists were arguing over how much power the government should hold, they eventually made compromises and ratified the U.S. Constitution. With these compromises the delegated created a constitution that still governs us to this day. Federalists strived to create a more efficient government. As George Washington illustrated “thirteen sovereign, independent, disunited States are in the habit of ….refusing compliance with our National Congress at their option. Would to God that wise measures be taken in time to avert the consequences we have much to reason to apprehend.” (Document 3) George Washington is stating that the states were poorly governed and were in need of unification. Since the states are losing interest in the ratification, the federalists had to create a stronger central government. Another example that supported