During the summer of 1787, representatives from each of the thirteen colonial states, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, two starkly contrasting groups of state delegates, had gathered to discuss a new Constitution to replace the failed Articles of Confederation. Namely, the delegates had debated as to whether or not the new ruleset should have taken effect, as they possessed highly dissimilar viewpoints regarding the Constitution. There were several Anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution’s ratification, alongside numerous counterarguments by the Federalists in its support. Specifically, the Anti-Federalists had been primarily concerned with the federal and state governments of the United States, fearing tyranny and excessive
…show more content…
Moreover, the Anti-Federalist delegates had pushed for a Bill of Rights, whereas the Federalists felt it unnecessary. Finally, the opposers of the Constitution took objection to skewed governmental representation. Eventually, the Constitution had received enough votes for it to be ratified into effect. However, the journey to its ratification had been far from a seamless one, for the Federalists had contested many of the Anti-Federalists’ viewpoints presented at the convention. They had wholly supported the Constitution, and were in support of a centralized system in general. Anti-Federalists had been the delegates primarily opposed to the new Constitution, as not only did they support the Articles of Confederation, upholding its sufficiency in its establishment of federal and state government, albeit admitting some of its flaws, they had also attempted to argue directly against the new document. The Federalists, on the other hand, decided that they would support the Constitution all the way through, until either it was ratified or it fell through. In doing so, they had countered a number of Anti-Federalist arguments. In order to detail the Federalist counterarguments, the original arguments themselves must be taken into …show more content…
From their collective viewpoint, an overly strong national government is a threat to individual rights, and the President of the United States would effectively become a tyrant, a king, in such a circumstance. Since each state had its own representatives, and had harbored its own viewpoints with regard to certain aspects of government of the country as a whole, a single, conglomerate government would position the country in a configuration which would restrict individual freedom and privileges. As written in The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, on December 12, 1787, “The principal of which are the rights of conscience, personal liberty by the clear and unequivocal establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, jury trial in criminal and civil cases, by an impartial jury of the vicinage or country, with the common law proceedings, for the safety of the accused in criminal prosecutions, and the liberty of the press, that scourge of tyrants, and the grand bulwark of every other liberty and privilege; the stipulations heretofore made in favor of them in the state constitutions, are entirely superseded by this constitution” (Doc B). All of the mentioned rights had already been in existence from a previous
Moreover, the Anti-Federalist delegates had pushed for a Bill of Rights, whereas the Federalists felt it unnecessary. Finally, the opposers of the Constitution took objection to skewed governmental representation. Eventually, the Constitution had received enough votes for it to be ratified into effect. However, the journey to its ratification had been far from a seamless one, for the Federalists had contested many of the Anti-Federalists’ viewpoints presented at the convention. They had wholly supported the Constitution, and were in support of a centralized system in general. Anti-Federalists had been the delegates primarily opposed to the new Constitution, as not only did they support the Articles of Confederation, upholding its sufficiency in its establishment of federal and state government, albeit admitting some of its flaws, they had also attempted to argue directly against the new document. The Federalists, on the other hand, decided that they would support the Constitution all the way through, until either it was ratified or it fell through. In doing so, they had countered a number of Anti-Federalist arguments. In order to detail the Federalist counterarguments, the original arguments themselves must be taken into …show more content…
From their collective viewpoint, an overly strong national government is a threat to individual rights, and the President of the United States would effectively become a tyrant, a king, in such a circumstance. Since each state had its own representatives, and had harbored its own viewpoints with regard to certain aspects of government of the country as a whole, a single, conglomerate government would position the country in a configuration which would restrict individual freedom and privileges. As written in The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, on December 12, 1787, “The principal of which are the rights of conscience, personal liberty by the clear and unequivocal establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, jury trial in criminal and civil cases, by an impartial jury of the vicinage or country, with the common law proceedings, for the safety of the accused in criminal prosecutions, and the liberty of the press, that scourge of tyrants, and the grand bulwark of every other liberty and privilege; the stipulations heretofore made in favor of them in the state constitutions, are entirely superseded by this constitution” (Doc B). All of the mentioned rights had already been in existence from a previous