The Constitutional Convention: September 17, 1787

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).

In May of 1787, fifty-five delegates from eleven of the thirteen American states came together in Philadelphia. The goal that they had was to fix and improve the current government created by the Articles of Confederation, which had been occurring since the year of 1781. The Articles created a weak alliance among the states. There was nothing that the national government could do about the taxes or regulate commerce. The delegates whom attended the Philadelphia convention had came to agreement that there were issues in the Articles of Confederation that needed to be fixed.

The debate was during the ratification of the Constitution. The anti-federalists believed that it gave too much power to the federal government. While both sides agreed that something different from the Articles of Confederation had to be created, many were uncomfortable with how far the Constitution went, and worried that the states would lose their sovereignty. The Federalists supported the Constitution, because they believed that the nation could only succeed with a strong national government.

On September 17, 1787, The Philadelphia Convention emitted their own new constitution to the states for ratification. Instead, The Federalist profoundly accepted the Constitution for several reasons, which included that this new constitution allowed for higher and further central government, that was formerly undermined under the Articles of Confederation. In the other hand, The Anti-Federalist, did not want a authoritative and dominant central government, but instead, powerful state governments; in response to the new constitution, many of the Anti-Federalists began writing different essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it. In retaliation to the Anti-Federalists experiment at earning states to not rarify the Constitution, many federalists advanced a group of essays known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the ratification of the new law system.

The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.

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 arguments between the Federalist and Massachusetts Anti-Federalist caused by Federalist paper #84 would have been very difficult to resolve without modifications to the items that were to be included in the Constitution like the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were considered to be relevant and deleterious to the Constitution by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who stated in the essay Federalist Paper #84 that the Bill of Rights is “...not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” In addition Hamilton pointed out that many natural rights, like the right to redress grievances, were already implied in the body of the Constitution, therefore no further listing was necessary. However, Anti-Federalist counteracted

The motivations and goal of the Constitutional convention of 1787 was to reform the Articles of Confederation to allow a stronger centralized government, and hopefully to solve issues not yet agreed upon within the government. There was a significant lack of representation for smaller states. Shay’s rebellion showcased an economic class disparity. There was also a lack of balance in the powers and a weak national government made for the states to have conflicting rules with each other as well as too much power. Shay’s Rebellion was the main perpetrator of the revision.

The lesson I would pick as the most important to teach to someone in American History is The U.S Constitution. America’s first government document was written on September 17, 1787 by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, lead over by George Washington. What the U.S Constitution did was it set up America’s national government, fundamental laws and it promised to give basic rights for its citizens. At the 1787 convention, delegates came up with an idea to have a more powerful federal government with three branches; executive, legislative and judicial branch with a system of checks and balances to make sure a certain branch did not take too much control over another one or was at the top of the other branches. Also, the

The charters granted by William Penn in 1682 and 1683 provided for amending, as did eight of the state constitutions in effect in 1787. Three state constitutions provided for amendment through the legislature, and the other five gave the power to specially elected conventions. ‘The Framers’ experience with the Articles of Confederation, under which constitutional amendment required approval of all thirteen States, revealed that making constitutional change which is too difficult could block needed reforms. Yet their experience with the ‘mutability’ of State laws also cautioned against making too easy. The Constitution permits amendments to be proposed either by Congress or a Convention made up of delegates elected in various

The Anti-Federalist argued against the idea of a powerful national government, which would limit the powers of the state. One other key argument made by the Anti-Federalist emphasized the need for a bill of rights. Anti-Federalist feared that with the lack of a bill of rights, the Constitution would not

During the constitutional convention of 1787 many things were talked about and needed to be resolved. Delegates from both the North and the South attended the convention and presented arguments to support their side of the arguments. Some of the main topics that were talked about during the constitutional convention were representation, slavery, and what type of government their should be. Smaller states wanted equal state numbers, while larger states wanted representation by population. Slave states wanted slaves to be counted, as population and representation while free states didn’t think they should be.

After the Constitution was sent to states for ratification, the people felt the Constitution did not protect the natural rights of the American citizens. The cause or reason for this addition to the Constitution was to ensure that the rights detailed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not thought to be the only possible rights of American citizens. The Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, said that if certain rights weren't specifically granted to the people, the government would easily take over these rights and abuse the people in the country. The Federalists, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, said that the Constitution give the government to do things that were

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.

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