Ratifications Case

Mr. Hauprich

10/17/11

DBQ

After the convention of 1787, there was discussion of a new constitution. There were people for and against the new proposed constitution. The Federalist Party pointed out benefits of the New Constitution and the anti-federalists didn't like the idea and argued against it, clamoring for more protection of their individual rights. Both sides were effective as the New Constitution was ratified in less than 2 years and a Bill of Rights was added in 1791.

With the debate over the new constitution there were numerous arguments for new stronger U.S constitution to replace the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation. The U.S economy and stability seemed threatening in 1787, so delegates in Philadelphia met with Alexander Hamilton to improve this failing government. The editor of the Massachusetts Sentinel argues for the new constitution because of the fact that he believes that it will bolster our economy and make us an efficient federal government. James Madison also supported the new constitution, he said in federalist Paper #10 under this new constitution, factions or parties of people would break up and they would begin to balance each other out. Madison's ideas about protection of liberties in a very large republic were contrary to conventional wisdom. Federalism and Checks and Balances would divide power enough to prevent tyranny.

On the other side of the fence, Mercy Otis Warren is against the ratifying of the constitution because of the lack of a Bill of Rights protecting rights, such as freedom of the press. Also because of the fact that the new government made it possible that one set of hands could control a political office for a lifetime (doc 2). Again on that same side of the fence, we hear Patrick Henry firebird of the American Revolution opposing the constitution. He opposes it due to the fact that the powers of the executive branch would make it so that that person could be king (doc 3). Also because states rights would be rubbed out and they would no longer be sovereign, thus not letting them have the ability to make most of their own decisions.

In the end both parties got what they wanted, both sides argument's caused enough stir that comprises were made and both parties got what they were asking for. The Federalists got what they wanted in less than 2 years after the convention of 1787. People like Madison and The editor of a Massachusetts newspaper who argued for a New Constitution to make for a stronger national government, and break up the factions that came about over the argument for the new Constitution. So in less than two years later the Federalist Party got what they wanted with the ratification of the new Constitution by the states. But, with the new constitution the anti-federalists clamored for a way to protect their personal freedoms, people