Data Based Question
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 conversed over the debates of the Federalists and anti-Federalists. These two “political parties” debated over the formation and enactment of the Constitution and they focused in the hardships the new nation faced. The Articles of Confederation weren’t achieving the necessities of America, which was deeply in debt. The Constitution however had to be ratified by 9 out of the 13 colonies before it could go into effect. The Federalists argued that a strong national government and the Constitution would save the nation. Meanwhile, the anti-Federalists contended that most of the power belonged to the states, being in fear of a dictator or abusive power in a strong government. The Constitution was heavily disputed throughout the colonies and the debates of the Federalists thankfully led to the passage of it. The Articles of Confederation once worked well but over time it failed because of various reasons. These reasons include currency issues because the Articles didn’t establish a national currency so merchants didn’t use money from outside their region; this caused inflation. Also, the country was in debt and Congress didn’t have the power to tax people and the U.S. lacked the military power to defend themselves because the states weren’t unified under the AOC. These problems caused the discussions at the Constitutional Convention. In the Virginia Plan, Mr. Randolph stated that at one time the Articles were satisfactory of but now there were too many problems; over time the needs of the nation changed and the articles needed to be replaced. The Federalists supported the Constitution and a strong central government. They believed that the Articles of Confederation left too much power with the individual states which then proposed too weak of a national government. As stated, the Articles were failing because of debt. In a “Proclamation of Shaysite...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document