Constitution Of 1787 Dbq Essay

The Public's opinion of the Constitution was divided into two separate groups known as the Federalists and the Antifederalists. Many of not all Federalists were wealthy and well educated with leaders like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. They were people who advocated a proposal or theory that of an orderly, efficient government could protect their economic status. The Federalists were also very well organized, also in many of the states they were often in control of the elections of ratifying

Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..

The Federalists were more educated while the Anti-Federalists were of poor families and less educated. They believed the Article of Confederation were ineffective. They believed the government should be strong and should protect the people. The Federalists favored the Constitution while the Anti-Federalists opposed it.

It took the convincing of the Anti-Federalists to explain how the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and did not state the rights and freedoms of the people, therefore lacking a Bill of Rights. The Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights, and later the Constitution was ratified with nine out of thirteen votes on June 21 of 1788. Soon after the Constitution was ratified, the separation of powers was understood in the United States government. The separation of powers separated each branch of government.

Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of

During the time before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the country was split into two factions. The Federalists, who drafted the Constitution, thought that the limited power of state government and limited individual rights to the people was the best form of government. And the Anti-Federalist, who believed that the strong federal government, as drafted in the Constitution,would strip people of their personal liberties and state governments of their sovereignty. Although the Constitution was ratified, if it wasn’t for compromises from both sides we might still be governed by the Articles of Confederation.

“Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” The title of the article is “The Antifederalists were right” it was written on Sept. 27, 2006 by Gary Galles. The article was about the reasons why antifederalists were right. The Federalists wanted a strong central government.

Once the framework was complete there was still much uneasiness and disagreement with how the country should be ran. The Federalists were for big government and the anti-federalists wanted to keep it at the state level. I will compare the two groups and what they stand for. Even though the majority of people were in favor

The Anti- Federalists also believed that the United States should just stay with the Articles of Confederation and wanted to prevent creating a federal government that could develop into a very dominant and overpower individual’s rights. They were also afraid that the Constitution would create too much power in the

The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.

They felt the Constitution would create a system of federalism, a system in which the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. They felt the country needed a strong central government so that it didn’t fall apart. The Ant-Federalists were on the opposing side, they felt the Constitution granted the government too much power. They also felt there wasn’t enough protection of their right with an absent Bill of Rights. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists mainly came from the lower classes, from their standpoint they thought the wealthy class would be in main control and gain the most benefits from the ratification of this document.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists had opposing views in the Constitution because of their differences; but they also had many similarities that ended up leading to the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists and Federalist had many similarities. Both were supportive of this new country and knew that they needed a government. They both wanted the congress to have power to create war and to create treaties.

DBQ Essay The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal

The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective