The battle to ratify the constitution quickly fell into two camps; the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists defended ratification of the constitution as it was written with the Anti-Federalists arguing against ratification for a number of reasons. The battle lines had been drawn, however, the arguments were far from consolidated; especially within the camp of the Anti-Federalists. Additionally, both sides took to media outlets to argue their positions where the written word on the argument of ratification played heavy on the side of the Federalists. Arguments against ratification brought forth by the Anti-Federalists were many and centered primarily on a long standing hostility to a stronger central government. Additionally,
…show more content…
The idea that one government could express the opinions or understand the will of the people could not be exercised by a government so large. This argument was an attempt to keep governmental control at the state level, where the people were closest to those that represented them. Additionally, Antifederalist’s believed a United States of its current size managed from one central government to be improbable and with the growth potential of the young nation, adequate representation would be nearly impossible without unmanageable numbers of …show more content…
Many individuals and states, like North Carolina and Virginia, required amendments to the constitution to support ratification as there was a pervasive distrust of the new government with regards to personal liberties. To the Anti-Federalists, a set of amendments would secure these liberties against a tyrannical government. For instance, Henry Lee of Virginia argued that without amendments to protect personal liberties, the constitution gave congress the ability to do everything they are not forbidden to do. What came to be one of the central issues within the Anti-Federalist argument during the ratification process, allowing for amendments to the constitution was an issue that had carried over from the constitutional convention where Mason, Randolph, and Gerry had argued to allow state ratifying conventions propose amendments. Unfortunately for the Federalists, and probably fortunate for the nation, the debate over amendments did not end at the constitutional
The idea that one government could express the opinions or understand the will of the people could not be exercised by a government so large. This argument was an attempt to keep governmental control at the state level, where the people were closest to those that represented them. Additionally, Antifederalist’s believed a United States of its current size managed from one central government to be improbable and with the growth potential of the young nation, adequate representation would be nearly impossible without unmanageable numbers of …show more content…
Many individuals and states, like North Carolina and Virginia, required amendments to the constitution to support ratification as there was a pervasive distrust of the new government with regards to personal liberties. To the Anti-Federalists, a set of amendments would secure these liberties against a tyrannical government. For instance, Henry Lee of Virginia argued that without amendments to protect personal liberties, the constitution gave congress the ability to do everything they are not forbidden to do. What came to be one of the central issues within the Anti-Federalist argument during the ratification process, allowing for amendments to the constitution was an issue that had carried over from the constitutional convention where Mason, Randolph, and Gerry had argued to allow state ratifying conventions propose amendments. Unfortunately for the Federalists, and probably fortunate for the nation, the debate over amendments did not end at the constitutional