The Ratification of the Constitution
There were many arguments for and against the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. The people that wanted the Constitution to be ratified and people who opposed it were called federalists and anti-federalists. They would get into heated arguments whether or not the Constitution should be ratified. The worst thing about the Constitution is it has no Bill of Rights to protect the people’s rights. Though the Constitution doesn’t have a Bill of Rights, it should be ratified because it would give the government a place to build off of so it would be able to protect the citizens and impose what needs to be imposed.
Federalists are the people that supported the ratification of the Constitution. One of the first federalists is Thomas R. Frazier. He supports the ratification of the Constitution because, with an unstable government, we would all be clueless and open for an attack from Britain. With the new Constitution though, it would enable the country to become united. Another Federalist is Jonathan Elliot. He supports the ratification of the Constitution if they will add a Bill of rights to it. Once the Bill of Rights is added, he, along with others, will ratify the Constitution.
Anti-federalists on the other hand are people that oppose the ratification of the Constitution. Although they aren’t as organized as the federalists are, they are greater in numbers. A man by the name of Merry Otis Warren, opposes the ratification of the Constitution because he believes that it gives to much power to the government while the press receives nothing. Another man that opposed the ratification of the Constitution was Patrick Henry. He believed that with the Constitution, people’s rights would be given up.
I, as an individual, believe that the Constitution should be ratified for many reasons. First of all, the new Constitution can impose taxes, while the Articles of Confederation cannot. This is good...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document