- Topic: To present the arguments both in favor of and in opposition of the ratification of the Constitution.
- Get audience’s attention: Devising the system of ratification had become necessary because sending it directly to the state legislatures would result in its rejection.
- Thesis statement: Though the process of ratification improved the chances of that the Constitution would be accepted, the Anti-federalist resistance posed a challenge to this.
II. Main Idea #1: Arguments against.
A. Anti-federalists opposed the ratification of the constitution because they did not trust centralized government.
B. The Constitution would give excessive power to the new government.
C. The Constitution would steal the voice of the common people due to not being democratic.
D. The Constitution would steal away power from individual states and the people.
III. Main Idea #2: Arguments for.
A. Federalists supported the Constitution because they believed it would balance national and state power.
B. The Articles of Confederation were ruining the country.
C. The Constitution would maintain a system of checks and balances.
V. Conclusion
A. The ratification of the Constitution succeeded, but a bill of rights was also passed, yet the nation was divided into two.
Since the Constitution left the states powerless, giving it all to the national government, the framers decided not to send it directly to the state legislatures for fear that they would reject it. In addition, it was the framers intention to get the population at large to be the source of governmental legitimacy rather than the states. Since the framers were worried the state legislatures would not accept the Constitution and they wanted to keep with their ideal, the system of ratification was initiated. The system gave the power the power to elect representatives to decide what form the government should have. However, the framers were aware that the process of ratification would be challenging. The resistance that emerged among the Anti-federalists had been anticipated.
The Anti-federalists did not trust centralized government because of their Enlightenment thinking and because of the colonial experience that contributed to the revolution, so they were not in support of the Constitution. Primarily, the Anti-federalists argued that the national government would lack the same level of compassion and responsiveness to the needs of the citizens as state governments had. The Anti-federalists also argued that the people would not allow a central government that was geographically aloof to govern them, especially when it was being controlled by politicians who did not have any motivation to vote for the best interests of each state. They believed that if state government submitted to national government it would mean that the interest of individual Americans were submitting to the needs of America. The Anti-federalists were mainly arguing against the Constitution because they believed that the protection of civil rights of individual Americans would not be guaranteed, and that the national government could try to wrongfully restrict and take away the power of the states by force. The Constitution was also condemned based on the fact that there was no bill of rights, and many took the side of the Anti-federalists.
On the other hand, the political values of the Federalists were based on the faults of the Articles of Confederation. They were in support of the constitution so enthusiastically because they believed that the national and state power would be perfectly balanced and argued that the government would remain honest and its power would remain limited because of a system of checks and balances. Many factors made the Federalist side stronger than the Anti-federalist side. The Federalist side included some of the most renowned and rich men of the nation, such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. The Constitution was being supported by most newspapers, and the networks of experienced politicians in the nation were under the influence of the Federalists. The Federalists were quite aggressive and organized at the time, so it can be assumed that the results of the early conventions were not much of a reflection of the actual opinions of the people.
Even though the Anti-federalists did not succeed in preventing the ratification of the Constitution, significant progress was made by them in certain areas. The Constitution was ratified by Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia with the request that a bill of rights be adopted by the government. The government made it their immediate aim to have a bill of rights. The vigilance of the Anti-federalist forces remained steady as the government started taking shape to ensure that the Federalist grant too many powers to the central government. The ratification of the Constitution divided the nation into Federalists and Anti-federalists, and this division between the sides opposing and supporting a strong central government deepened as the years passed.
Work Cited
"ANTIFEDERALISTS VS FEDERALISTS." GPS Faculty Pages. Girls Preparatory School. Web. 18 Nov 2013. <http://staff.gps.edu/mines/APUSH -antifederalists_vs_federalists.htm>.
"Chapter 13 The Debate Over Ratifying the Constitution."Digital History: UH. University of Houston, n.d. Web. 18 Nov 2013. <http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit2_13.pdf>.
