Pros And Cons Of The Ratification Debate

909 Words4 Pages
Ratification Debate A single document is what started the debate. The document consisted of rules and rights for all citizens to follow. It was written and approved by a group of wealthy elites who wrote it to give advantages to them, and to think of anyone who was not a wealthy elite as lesser than them, and not worth the advantages. The main question is, “Which arguments offered the most persuasive case for whether or not the US should have ratified the Constitution?” The Anti-Federalists surely proved their points better than any other group. They agree that the Constitution did not preserve the rights and powers of citizens, represent the people in the government, grant states the rights they deserve or limit government power. Most of these Anti-Federalists fought long and hard for a promise that was later broken. Following this, a bunch of wealthy elites got together and decided on things that went against what they had just fought their lives for. It was greedy and disrespectful of them. Over 20,000 men fought together and beat the odds winning a war against the Great Britain only to gain control of the land. The system of government as a newly independent country should be up to the ones who sacrificed their lives for it. If the government were to…show more content…
First off, they call themselves the wisest, but in no way can they prove that. The Anti-Federalists fought for their country, and work for what they want, while the Federalists have things given to them, with no work applied. In a newspaper essay by Elbridge Gerry, he added, “However respectable the members may be who signed the Constitution, it must be admitted that a free people are the proper guardians of their rights and liberties.” He concludes that although the men who signed the Constitution should be respected, they also need to get perspectives from other

More about Pros And Cons Of The Ratification Debate

Open Document