Since 1787-1790 the development of the American ratification constitution became a debate between two opposing sides philosophies. Two groups consisted of federalist, those who supported the constitution and anti-federalist, those who opposed the constitution and a stronger government. However, several ideas united both federalist and anti- federalist. Both groups recognized that there were abuse of power and wanted security and liberty for all citizens. An analysis of the following essay is to process reveals both philosophies controversies as to why there was a debate over the constitution ratification.
John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote the federalist paper. Its main purpose was to convince the citizens voters to ratify the constitution.…show more content… In my opinion, I agree with the rules that federalist was trying to make by setting up the constitution, for the fact that they seemed to provide a better government which is what every citizen expect from a country. Many amendments could be considered, for instance amendment 2nd. However, it has its negative side effects, now days there is abuse of possessive weapons. The anti-federalist was not wrong by doubting on whether to ratify or reject the constitution. Perhaps sometimes things do not happen as the government promises them and it was the major issue in many countries.
In conclusion, the constitution was adapted in 1798, federalist won their argument and it’s now taking effect in the United States of America. Anti- federalist begged for liberty, fairness, and equal rights (bill of rights) and their claim were considered and kept on the constitution paper. The main purpose of the essay was to discuss both term and its difference and as said previously federalist had a more reasonable concepts and interest for the country and its citizens and were more likely to win such
