In May of 1787 fifty-five men ranging from age twenty-six to age eighty-one converged onto Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The delegates were tasked with a mission: modify the Articles of Confederation. After vigorous debate, the delegates realized the Articles were too weak to support economic prosperity nor provide for public safety. Thus, the delegates underwent a new task: the creation of a brand-new Constitution. A brand new Constitution presented the delegates with a new point of contention. The fifty-five men would have to create a new Constitutions strong enough the support a nation’s economic prosperity, public safety, and so forth without allocating the new government power that did not squint towards a monarchy. Realizing this challenge divided the convention into a plethora of different opinions. These competing opinions could largely be grouped into two factions; the federalist and the anti-federalist.
An Overview: Federalist v. Anti-Federalist …show more content…
They viewed the Constitution as giving the government too much power to the federal government which encouraged consolidation. The Anti-Federalist argued that such wide-spread allocation of power would trample on the rights of the people and states. State rights were the “theme song” of the Anti-Federalist. The Federalist, discussed next, insisted the Constitution in fact guaranteed the protection of individual and state rights. The Anti-Federalist would propose a compromise. They would approve of the Constitution if it were coupled with a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights affirmed the federal government was prohibited from infringing upon the people’s civil liberties. Additionally, the Bill of Rights assured the states that they would retain jurisdiction and control over most civil liberty disputes between States and