Explain Their Position On Adopting The Constitution In 1787
List the two groups and explain their position on adopting the Constitution in 1787. Why was this debate critical for both sides? What promises were made and kept as a result of the debates? EVALUATE: Would our lives be different if this debate had not taken place? Why or why not? The Constitutional Convention was an important part of the United States’ history and played a big role in shaping our history and also our present. The Constitution is important because it is what our country follows to be organized, fair, and in order. People who favored the Constitution along with a strong national government were called federalists. The Federalists were afraid that the United States wouldn’t stay united without the Constitution, so that
…show more content…
Some people in the States believed that the best way to come together as a country was by having a centralised federal government. These people, known as Federalists, supported the adoption of the Constitution. They produced the Federalist Papers to gain support. Their opponents, the Antifederalists, argued that a centralised government would turn into the same type of government from which they had just won independence. As the Constitution did not include citizen’s rights, a Bill of Rights was added after its ratification.
If these debates hadn’t happened, it is entirely possible that the individual states could have become separately operating entities, eventually dividing into several countries. The people living in those states may not have had the rights and opportunities granted to them by the development of the Constitution. Without the centralised government, the states may have fallen apart and not lasted any significant amount of time. There may not have been expansion past the thirteen original colonies. Native American nations might have still been in existence, and life would be very different from as it is now.
Hello
Some people in the States believed that the best way to come together as a country was by having a centralised federal government. These people, known as Federalists, supported the adoption of the Constitution. They produced the Federalist Papers to gain support. Their opponents, the Antifederalists, argued that a centralised government would turn into the same type of government from which they had just won independence. As the Constitution did not include citizen’s rights, a Bill of Rights was added after its ratification.
If these debates hadn’t happened, it is entirely possible that the individual states could have become separately operating entities, eventually dividing into several countries. The people living in those states may not have had the rights and opportunities granted to them by the development of the Constitution. Without the centralised government, the states may have fallen apart and not lasted any significant amount of time. There may not have been expansion past the thirteen original colonies. Native American nations might have still been in existence, and life would be very different from as it is now.
Hello