Note On Speeches Debating The Consitution From The NY Ratification Convention

Richard R. Beeman describes the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a “Revolution in Government” because the goal of the Constitutional Convention was not a plan to amend the Articles of Confederation; it was a plan to drastically reform the old form of government, thus, revolutionizing the governing document of that time. The convention set in motion the creation of a completely different form of government. Beeman’s article could also suggest that the relationships between the different politicians was also groundbreaking. For example when “the southern delegates are willing to compromise for the sake of harmony” it shows that they are willing to set aside their differences in order to establish a better form of government for the well-being of the country (Beeman).

According to my point of view the anti-federalists played upon these sentiments in the ratification tradition in Massachusetts. By this point, five of the states had sanctioned the Constitution without any difficulty, however the Massachusetts tradition was significantly all the more sharp and hostile. At last, after long open

The book is a narrative that accounts the events of the convention and how the Constitution was drafted and created. The book emphasizes the process and thought behind all the compromises created for the Constitution to be ratified by all the delegates. Furthermore, the book outlines the four months it took to craft the Constitution and the intensity of the delegates at the convention. The Summer of 1787 also mentions almost all the delegates in extreme depth, such as Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, John Dickenson, George Washington and other eminent politicians and lawyers. The book discloses what each delegate did at the convention, what their opinions were and what their beliefs

The authors claimed opposition “unnerves the aim of government” and “aids the enemy”, which is Great Britain in this case . By their statement that opposition in turn benefitted the British, the representatives called dissent as essentially against United States’ interests. The authors associate opposition as a threat to the union and thus, concludes opposition “will finally end in anarchy and rebellion” . The Democratic-Republican representatives cite European history as proof that opposition and division creates disunion, animosity and “distrust when confidence is required”. Additionally, they focus on Federalist opposition specifically and even state Federalists contradict themselves in a way that “Federalists called aloud for war and abused the government for not declaring it…but now...you are told the war is unjust” .

The question of representation kept the delegates entangled in debates for weeks to come. One argument was just to remain under the representational aspect of the Articles of Confederation which declared, “…the states were equally represented in a unicameral Congress by delegates appointed by the state legislatures.” The remaining delegates believed that the articles were flawed in every aspect, including representation and there should be a new way of proceeding with representation of the states in the Legislature.

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who

Disagreements about the appropriate framework for government were predominantly featured between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The Federalists proposed that America needed a constitution that promoted a stronger central government that also gave powers to the subnational governments of the states. According to them, this would create a more unified nation that would facilitate law and order. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists opposed the idea of having a stronger central government due to the perpetual fear that a central government could potentially expand its power and eventually take all the powers from the states. They wanted to avoid this kind of government as much as possible, as it reminded them of their experiences under the unitary British

Madison states that the “The two great points of difference, between a democracy and a republic, are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended” (Madison, 154). Madison throughout the Federalist 10 papers mentions that he prefers a republic, where this is less representation. Warren believed that the representation proposed by the Constitution was insufficient. She mentions this in her eleventh reason, stating that “one representative to thirty thousand inhabitants is a very inadequate representation...interfering with any regulations for the time, places, and manner of choosing our own representatives” (Warren, 158). Because Mercy Warren preferred a stronger state government, she doesn’t feel as though the representation would represent well enough what they need and would give them less liberty to choose their

As stated in Debate of the National Bank, “the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of a country, its finances, trade, defence, &c., ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good. . .” This would give the national government implied powers. They believed that this would allow the government to become strong enough to protect itself economically and militarily. This belief also presented itself in the Federalist view of popular elections. They felt that people should be able to vote, but the more important decisions should be left up to the rich and intelligent people that were elected to

Q2 Challenges Addressed at the Constitutional Convention The Constitutional Convention of 1787 sought to address several pressing challenges facing the newly formed United States, including the weakness of the central government and the conflicts over representation in the legislature. The Constitution, as ratified in 1788 and amended through the Bill of Rights in 1791, addressed many of these issues, though some would persist and evolve during the early decades of the nation's history. Two major challenges addressed at the Convention included the balance of power between the central government and the states, and the nature of representation in the legislature. It can be argued that while the Constitution made significant strides in addressing

Federalist 39, also outlines that this new form of government receive its power to govern from the people and for them to recognize that fact, so the populous recognizes that the government is not an aristocracy. Madison when talking about representation explains that

Assembling in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were focused on ending the era of economic depression, social uncertainty, and leadership under an unhealthy central government that had followed independence (McKay, Crowston, Wiesner-Hanks, & Perry, 2017). Members permitted to discuss their differences without any consequences or retaliation while in attendance of the Constitutional Convention. These delegates were elected due to them being members of the social and educational elite, they were also young, wealthy, and desired to make the national government strong, while promoting economic and social stability (Schultz, 2013). The two main divisions at the Constitutional Convention were the large

The American nation as forewarned by President Washington was not destined to have two fraction but with the two paths coming about it was inevitable and their came Alexander’s Hamilton who represented the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson leading the Democratic-republicans. The Federalists were mostly bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and bankers; they were well educated and were from the New England and part of the coast. The republican were uneducated and mostly shopkeepers, artisan, backcountry farmers from the interior regions. The federalist wanted a strong central government that would control faction; this group thought of the public as ignorant and incapable of governing themselves.

The controversies over the ratification of the Constitution was taxation, too much power to the President, trading, and the lack of Bill of Rights. There were people who agreed to ratify the Constitution the way it is, which were called federalists. Federalists reasoned that Americans should ratify the Constitution because Americans are allowed to ask for additional amendments after they ratify the Constitution. The ability to be able to request additional amendments after supported the Federalist’s point of view because the Anti-federalists may ask for further amendments after which could happen after they ratify the Constitution.

In the 18th Century Federalist and Anti-Federalists went head to head, after the Constitution was created it had to be ratified by the states. There were a number of people at the time that did not want the federal or national government to hold power. These people were the Anti-Federalist, and they wanted sovereign and independent government. The Anti-Federalist had many strong members such as Patrick Henry and George Mason that were afraid if the Constitution was ratified they would lose their power. On the other side the Federalist wanted the ratification as they wanted a large nation.