There was always intense debate between various parties, as they have dissimilar views regarding the same issues. A primary goal of this paper is to discover differences in opinions concerning the ratification of the Constitution. Firstly, the articles of Confederation and new a Constitution of 1748 are compared, and weaknesses and strengths are determined. Secondly, the analysis of the drafting of the Constitution is provided to evaluate which aspects different states have to compromise. The final overview of the Constitution was composed by paying particular attention to Roger’s Sherman Plan. Furthermore, the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is discussed to understand their political views. Lastly, the conclusions are drawn.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Articles of Confederation and New Constitution of 1787
Firstly, the Articles of Confederation have to be compared with the New Constitution of 1787, as it will determine the weaknesses of the Articles. The Articles were insufficient regarding some cases. A new Constitution is more sophisticated, as it provides detailed information about the particular matters. The Articles of Confederation lacked the political control, as no sovereign executive was present (Utah State University, 2008). Moreover, a New Constitution is more democratic, as more people from each state were introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives. It could be concluded that the primary benefit of New Constriction is its democratic intentions and establishment of the centralized power.
Secondly, the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation are discovered with the help of comparison of the Articles of Confederation with the New Constitution. It could not perform a sufficient control over the states, as the Articles of Confederation did not provide the equal power to all the states. One of the examples is the Western problem. The East and West had different attitudes and views of the governmental development and enhancement the economic situation in the country, and it appeared that Western manufacturers were locked down in the economic trap (U.S. Department of State, 2015). It was clear that the Articles of Confederation were not able to solve this problem, as it lacked the democratic aspects and was not able to find the compromise for the conflicting states.
Analysis of Drafting of the Constitution
An interesting fact is that the Constitution does not mention slavery in its acts. However, it was not entirely forbidden (Beeman, 2006). Nonetheless, it was actively discussed in the Articles of Confederation. It was considered as a violation of the human rights. Both free and slavery states have to compromise, as one has to understand that slavery is partly prohibited. In turn, free states have to accept the slavery partially. Nonetheless, the United States of America was moving to being completely democratic.
The Conservatives were against the changes. However, in the end, it was a primary driver for the development of the Constitution, as the conservatives were looking for the centralization of the power (Glenn, 2010). Consequently, they had to scarify the traditional and already established state of the country. In turn, Republicans had a compromising point of view, but the representative of this ideology have to accept the fact the changes would not cover all the spheres.
Lastly, the ‘Great Compromise’ has to be discussed, as it unified all the sacrifices and acceptances of the dissimilar political views. This act contributed to the equal rights of all the parties, as people from different states have the equal representation in the House of Representative and Senate (Pope & Treier, 2011). It is apparent that, in this case, people have the ability to present and discuss the values of different states and find the practical solutions and compromises.
In the end, all of the states have to contribute to compromising and sacrificing some of their values. In this case, these actions were necessities, as it would be impossible to establish a coherent Constitution without them. Moreover, the dissimilar beliefs of each state were combined to find suitable solutions to the constantly rising political, social, and economic issues.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists
Firstly, it is important to understand the differences between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, as it is apparent that the representatives of these parties had the opposite views regarding the formation of the Constitution. It is clear that the Federalists were supporting the development of the Constitution. One of the primary topics discussed in the Federalist Papers is the dependency of the government on the sufficient actions of the administration (Newbold, 2011). It is apparent that introduction and development of the Constitution are beneficial for the Federalists, as centralized power will be introduced to control all of the segments of the country. Moreover, giving each state the power to regulate its affairs would be beneficial for the country from the economic perspective, as decision-making process takes place on the state-level. This fact helps save governmental time and resources while finding solutions to various issues.
As for the Anti-Federalists, it is apparent that they opposed the ratification and development of the Constitution. However, the primary concern and worry of Anti-Federalists is the fact the constitutionalized governmental structure might evolve into the monarchy and lack democracy (Schultz, 2015). It is apparent that the Federalists wanted to introduce the Bill of Rights to protect the freedom of the individuals and democratic attitude in the country. One of the bright representatives of Federalist’s opposition is John Hancock. A role John Hancock is essential while finding the compromise, as this Anti-Federalist was able to change his opinion regarding the ratification of the Constitution (Schultz, 2015). His point of view changed due to the proposal of introduction and establishment of the Bill of Rights.
The debate over the Bill of Rights can be used to determine the differences between two ideologies. The Anti-Federalists wanted to protect the freedoms of the individuals, and this matter is a primary content of the first several amendments (Schultz, 2015). It was aimed at protecting the citizens from the existence of monarchy and violation of the human rights by the government. As for the Federalists, their views were discussed in the last amendment, as it proposed federal separations of the states with each of them having a sovereign power. It could be concluded that the compromise have to be found to ratify the Constitution since, without it, it was impossible to find the balance between the two opposite beliefs.
An introduction of the Bill of Rights was an essentiality, as it allowed protecting the views of the individuals. Subsequently, the monarchy could not appear, as the democratic features of the society were emphasized in the Bill of Rights. It was a vital supplement to the Constitution, as it helped find the balance between the perceptions of Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
In conclusion, ratification and introduction of a new Constitution was a necessity, as the Articles of Confederation lacked the centralized power. However, many debates occurred while ratifying the Constitution since different states and parts of the country had dissimilar opinions regarding this matter. Nonetheless, a compromise was found, as each state had to sacrifice parts of the ideologies. Lastly, John Hancock had a vital contribution to ratification of the Constitution and the establishment of the Bill of Rights to avoid a return to the monarchical governmental structure.
Beeman, R. (2006). The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A revolution in government. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 86(3), 35-38.
Glenn, B. (2010). Conservatives and American political development. Political Science Quarterly, 125(4), 611-638.
Newbold, S. (2011). Federalist No. 27: Is Transparency Essential for Public Confidence in Government? Public Administration Review, 71(S1), s47-s52.
Pope, J., & Treier, S. (2011). Reconsidering the Great Compromise at the Federal Convention of 1787: Deliberation and Agenda Effects on the Senate and Slavery. American Journal of American Science, 55(2), 289-306.
Schultz, K. (2015). HIST4: Volume 1: U.S. history throughout 1877. London, UK: Cengage Learning.
U.S. Department of State: The Constitution: An enduring document. (2015). Web.
Utah State University: Comparison of Constitution and Articles of Independence. (2008). Web.