Question: What were the major arguments used by each side (the supporters and the opponents) in the debates over the ratification of the U.S Constitution? In the year 1787, early America, officials and delegates came together to form a constitution that would restore the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was the attempt at creating a government for the newly independent America. But, it soon became clear that the document was not strong enough to govern America. Therefore, delegates who came to be known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists issued major arguments on the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Federalists were individuals who wished to unify the 13 states in negotiation, and
…show more content…
The government was corrupt and it was hard to earn money. At the time, the federal government had no power to levy or collect taxes, no power to regulate trade, and no power to enforce laws. Also, the states still had debts from the outcomes of the American Revolution. Therefore, the states were weak and the government was not organized. As people complained, The Federalists were convinced to resolve the issues.
The anti-federalists were delegates who opposed the ratification of the U.S Constitution. They opposed the ratification because they feared the Bill of Rights would be altered which protected individual liberties. In document number five, Amos Singletree was against the constitution because the lawyers and men that created the document were rich, intelligent, and talented and did not think about what the poor people needed. Anti-Federalists believed they were only looking to benefit themselves in the situation. A 2nd argument was quoted in Observations on the new Federal Constitution and on the Federal and State