In 1787 the weak form of government brought together by the Articles of Confederation was not doing its justice for the colonists. In the Article of Confederation, there was only one branch of government, and that one branch had no power over the states. This soon proved itself to be ineffective to be a national government for the people. To remedy this problem the Founding Fathers got together at the Philadelphia Convention to discuss a new plan for the government. The Founding Fathers decided not to revise the Articles of Confederation, but to create a completely new constitution. With so many great minds working on the same thing, there were obviously differing opinions on certain issues. The greatest issue that was not agreed upon was
…show more content…
Dividing the parties almost completely in half were two groups with called the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists were more for a weak central government and more power to individual states, also their biggest argument was for a Bill of Rights. Now on the other hand the Federalists wanted a stronger central government and were against a Bill of Rights because they believed the government would give them rights. The Anti-Federalists main argument for a Bill of Rights was that there were certain rights that were guaranteed to people that the government should not infringe upon. The Bill of Rights secured these rights so that the government could not change them. Federalist argued that there is not a need for the Bill of Rights because the government would not infringe upon these rights because the states and the people kept any powers that the Federal Government was not given. The Bill of Rights was eventually added to the Constitution, however, other aspects of the Constitution were called into question by the Anti-Federalists. In order to address the Anti-Federalists' concerns, the Federalists came up with a series of documents called the Federalist papers. Through these papers the Federalists explained their views on important disputed issues and garnered support for ratifying the …show more content…
While this rule was in play, there could not be any type of ratification for the constitution because Rhode Island exited themselves from the process. At the time the founders were establishing the Great Compromise for the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. This compromise provided a dual system of congressional representation. In which, the House of Representatives seats would be based off of each state’s population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. In this compromise the Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights along with the new Constitution. Now during this, Rhode Island did not participate as previously stated, therefore the Constitution could not be ratified. The Philadelphia convention was indefinitely trying to ratify the Constitution, so George Washington communicated to Rhode Island that if they did not agree then they would be isolated from the rest of the United States. Rhode Island would not be able to call to the United States for anything and would have to provide solely on themselves as if they were a separate country. To then avoid this issue happening again, they created rules regulating it. The changes that came about were, only nine states needed to approve for a law to be passed. This allowed the process of ratifying laws to speed up and become possible. Changing the rules to the ratification
Dividing the parties almost completely in half were two groups with called the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists were more for a weak central government and more power to individual states, also their biggest argument was for a Bill of Rights. Now on the other hand the Federalists wanted a stronger central government and were against a Bill of Rights because they believed the government would give them rights. The Anti-Federalists main argument for a Bill of Rights was that there were certain rights that were guaranteed to people that the government should not infringe upon. The Bill of Rights secured these rights so that the government could not change them. Federalist argued that there is not a need for the Bill of Rights because the government would not infringe upon these rights because the states and the people kept any powers that the Federal Government was not given. The Bill of Rights was eventually added to the Constitution, however, other aspects of the Constitution were called into question by the Anti-Federalists. In order to address the Anti-Federalists' concerns, the Federalists came up with a series of documents called the Federalist papers. Through these papers the Federalists explained their views on important disputed issues and garnered support for ratifying the …show more content…
While this rule was in play, there could not be any type of ratification for the constitution because Rhode Island exited themselves from the process. At the time the founders were establishing the Great Compromise for the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. This compromise provided a dual system of congressional representation. In which, the House of Representatives seats would be based off of each state’s population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. In this compromise the Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights along with the new Constitution. Now during this, Rhode Island did not participate as previously stated, therefore the Constitution could not be ratified. The Philadelphia convention was indefinitely trying to ratify the Constitution, so George Washington communicated to Rhode Island that if they did not agree then they would be isolated from the rest of the United States. Rhode Island would not be able to call to the United States for anything and would have to provide solely on themselves as if they were a separate country. To then avoid this issue happening again, they created rules regulating it. The changes that came about were, only nine states needed to approve for a law to be passed. This allowed the process of ratifying laws to speed up and become possible. Changing the rules to the ratification