The Constitution: Ratification's Impact And Legacy

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a fierce debate between two large groups of people: those who supported the ratification and those who did not. The supporters of the ratification believed that the current government was heading in the wrong direction, and that the ratification would fix the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the opponents of the ratification were concerned that it would give the government too much power, and that there would be no controlling force to keep the government in check.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution (Constitutional Heritage Series)

$35.48 $50

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification : Part One, September 1787-February 1788 (Library of America)

$32.82 $42.5

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$79.05 $85

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

$27.9 $42.5

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a debate between supporters and opponents

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between supporters and opponents. Those in favour of ratification believed that it could create a more powerful, unified country, and that the current government was heading in the wrong direction. They believed that ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government.

Opponents of ratification, known as anti-Federalists, were concerned that it would give the government too much power, and that there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place. They also believed that the document was deficient in certain criteria, such as a bill of rights and the ability for people to choose their delegates to Congress annually. Anti-Federalists argued that the freedoms of citizens were not guaranteed, and that dividing Congress into three branches would slow down law-making.

One editor of a New York newspaper argued against ratification in 1788, stating that it tended to conquer and violate some necessary procedures. Another opponent of ratification believed that the defects in the post-revolution War articles of confederation and lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce were not substantial enough to initiate the documentation of the constitution.

Opponents of the ratification believed it would give the government too much power

Opponents of the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 believed that it would give the government too much power. They were concerned that there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place. They also believed that the ratification was deficient on certain criteria, such as a bill of rights and the ability for people to choose their delegates to Congress annually. They argued that their freedoms were not guaranteed and that dividing Congress into three branches would slow down the law-making process.

The ratification of the US Constitution sparked a fierce debate between two large groups of people: those who supported it and those who did not. Both sides had strong reasons for their beliefs. The supporters of the ratification believed that the current government was heading in the wrong direction and that a ratification would fix the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government.

The opponents of the ratification also argued that the defects in the post-revolution War articles of confederation and the lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce were not substantial enough to initiate the documentation of the constitution. They believed that the material lacked fair terms that applied to all parties and therefore could not be signed or ratified into law.

The ratification of the US Constitution was a highly contentious issue, with both supporters and opponents having valid concerns and arguments.

Supporters believed the current government was heading in the wrong direction

Supporters of the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 believed that the current government was heading in the wrong direction. They felt that the ratification would fix the mistakes made by the original government and set the course for a successful government. They believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country.

Supporters also believed that the ratification was necessary to address defects in the post-revolution War articles of confederation and the lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce. They argued that the current system was deficient in certain criteria, such as the absence of a bill of rights and the inability of the people to choose their delegates to Congress annually.

Opponents of the ratification, known as Anti-Federalists, disagreed with this assessment. They argued that the ratification would give the government too much power and that there would be no controlling force to keep the government in check. They also believed that the freedoms of the people were not guaranteed under the proposed Constitution.

The debate surrounding the ratification of the US Constitution was fierce and passionate, with both sides presenting strong and divergent arguments. Ultimately, the ratification was approved in 1788, establishing the national government and fundamental laws of the United States of America.

Explore related products

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 38: Bill of Rights, No. 2, The Public Debate, September 1787-May 1788 (Volume 38)

$95

The Fate of the Revolution: Virginians Debate the Constitution (Witness to History)

$9.99 $17.99

An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates (American Political Thought)

$27.3 $42.99

The Ratification Debates: The U.S. Constitution (Audio Classics)

$18

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 39: Bill of Rights, No. 3, The Public Debate, 4 June-31 December 1788 (Volume 39)

$95

All You Want to Know About the United States Constitution: The Constitutional Convention and the Ratification Debates

$15.99 $25

The Constitution establishes the national government and fundamental laws of the United States

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a fierce debate between two large groups of people: those who supported the ratification and those who did not. The Constitution establishes the national government and fundamental laws of the United States, and its ratification was seen by supporters as a way to create a more powerful, unified country. They believed that the current government was failing and that ratification would fix the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government.

Opponents of the ratification, however, had strong concerns about the government gaining too much control and violating necessary procedures. They argued that the Constitution was deficient in certain criteria, such as the lack of a bill of rights and the ability for people to choose their delegates to Congress annually. Without these guarantees of freedom, they feared the government would have too much power and there would be no controlling force to keep it in check.

The debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution was intense, with both sides passionately defending their positions. The supporters of the ratification, known as Federalists, believed that the Constitution would provide the necessary framework for a strong and effective national government. On the other hand, the opponents, known as Anti-Federalists, argued that the Constitution fell short of guaranteeing the freedoms and rights they believed were essential.

The ratification of the Constitution was a pivotal moment in the history of the United States, as it laid the foundation for the country's governing principles and legal system. Despite the concerns raised by the Anti-Federalists, the Constitution was ultimately ratified, shaping the course of the nation and establishing the framework for the US government and its laws.

The Constitution is deficient on certain criteria, such as a bill of rights and annual elections for Congress delegates

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a fierce debate between two large groups of people: those who supported the ratification and those who did not. One of the main concerns of the opponents was that the Constitution was deficient in certain areas, such as a bill of rights and annual elections for Congress delegates.

The Constitution is a document that establishes the national government and fundamental laws of the United States of America. Those who oppose the ratification of the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, argue that the Constitution does not adequately protect the freedoms of the people. They believe that the Constitution should include a bill of rights that guarantees certain freedoms and liberties for the citizens.

Additionally, Anti-Federalists argue that the Constitution should allow for annual elections for Congress delegates. They believe that the people should have the power to choose their representatives in Congress and that these representatives should be accountable to the people. By having annual elections, the people would have a direct say in who represents them and could hold their delegates accountable for their actions.

Another concern raised by the Anti-Federalists is the division of Congress into three branches. They argue that this division could slow down the law-making process and create disorder. They believe that a more streamlined and efficient system would be preferable, one that allows for quicker and more effective decision-making.

Overall, the Anti-Federalists' position is that the Constitution, as it stands, does not sufficiently protect the rights and freedoms of the people. They argue that a bill of rights and annual elections for Congress delegates are essential components of a fair and just government. By including these elements, the Constitution would better serve the people and ensure that their voices are heard and their freedoms are protected.

Frequently asked questions