Ratifying the Constitution

321 Words2 Pages
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a struggle for its ratification that went on until 1790. Members of Congress believed that the Articles of Confederation, the first government of the United States, needed to be altered while others did not want change. After the Revolutionary War, there was a need for strong state centered governments, rather than a strong central government based on their experience as a colony. However, a record reveals that the Articles of Confederation were not meeting the needs of Americans, and the need for a new Constitution was desired. This desired Constitution created a huge dispute and argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. George Washington and Thomas R. Frazier (author of a newspaper excerpt) were both federalists and supporters of the new Constitution. George believed they had errors to correct, meaning he thought that the new Constitution would fix the problems that the Articles of Confederation caused. Thomas believed they were in need of having an efficient federal government. Both federalists believed the new Constitution would help with providing protection, the general welfare of the people and enforcing the laws. (Doc 1 & 3) Two men, Patrick Henry and Amos Singletree, were both antifederalist and opposed the Constitution. Patrick opposed the Constitution because he believed the states would lose power. He thought it was too late to try to fix something that separated America from Great Britain. Amos Singletree believed the men who drafted the constitution are using it as an excuse to gain more power and money for themselves. (Doc 4 & 5) Between the federalists and the antifederalists, the federalists obviously had the better argument because they are the ones who helped get the Constitution ratified. They thought that it would help fix problems from the Articles.
Open Document