The ratification of the U.S Constitution was so problematic mainly because of the tension and rivalry between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. Unfortunately, the two had very different opinions about finance and economic interests and did not trust the one another to make a fair decision. Federalists were property owners that were in favor of the ratification, they included merchants, shippers and bankers and were typically wealthier. The Anti-Federalists consisted of small farmers who opposed the constitution because they believed it would shift all the power to the wealthy. The two parties fought over representation of the states, the Bill of Rights, expansion of territories, the issue of slavery of the degree of power the “people” had. The Anti-Federalists believed a stronger centralized government would strip their individual rights and give all of the political power to the wealthy.
Charles Beard claims the argument of having a centralized government vs. a decentralized government was at its core a disagreement between the importance of personal property (supported by the wealthy) and real property (supported by the small farmers). He stated the supporters of the constitution are the Bourgeoisie, the wealthy Federalists, because the constitution would push the importance of personal property. They would gain more power as they gained more money. Anti-federalists did not favor the Constitution and wanted more power held in state governments in order to decrease the high taxes imposed by the government. Beard was of the opinion that the Anti-Federalists were correct, and the constitution was going to give the wealthy more power, and strip the individuals of their rights.
Michael Moore’s letter confirms Charles Beard’s opinion in that the government had and has been continually allowing the wealthy to gain more success and suppressing the middle/lower classes. It is my opinion that this is a correct assumption. Today, those who have money have all...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document