Essay #3 Rough Draft

Massachusetts was primarily a federalist colony in the eighteenth century. Federalism was much more followed and was a very logical way of looking at things but there was still the presence of Anti-federalism in Massachusetts at this point in time. There was a huge separation between the upper and the lower class because the writers of the constitution were primarily upper class citizens. The ratification of the constitution caused changes in Massachusetts. The key arguments the Massachusettians had towards ratifying the constitution were that they were able to add amendments, and for the ability for all of the states to carry equal weight and they strived towards the ability to have legislation, judicial and executive.

The federalists and anti-federalists were also divided over the House of Representatives. The federalists liked the idea that all the states would carry equal weight. Larger states would lose some political power and smaller states would gain political power in order to make the states have equal weight. Some of the larger states did not like this obviously because their political power was lessened because they were a larger state. The anti-federalists were not happy about the representation for each state for a different reason. They believed that the representation for each state was too small and the term was too long. One member in the House of Representatives represented about 30,000 people from their state. Whereas, the members in the state legislatures are annually elected, are selected by small circles of people, are not moved very far from their homes, their community knows everything they do, and they frequently see the people they are representing. This allows them to represent their community accurately and the people can be assured that they are well represented and their opinions are heard. Anti-federalists were afraid that with one member representing 30,000 people that there would be no way for their opinions to represented accurately. They also feared that the only representatives elected would be members of the elite and that the middle and lower classes would be shoved aside and forgotten. The federalists just wanted people who were intelligent, powerful leaders. This was not the only problem that stood in the way of the ratification of the Constitution.

The anti-federalists of Massachusetts had the concern that ratifying the Constitution would demean the original Constitution of Massachusetts. Ratifying the Federal Constitution would necessitate changes in there own constitution “which would be a violation of the compact,” (1). However the Federal Constitution is not as set in stone as the Massachusetts Constitution unlike the Massachusetts Constitution the federal Constitution can be amended. The ability to make amendments is one of the most appealing attributes of the Constitution. Under the new constitution the people now would not be confined to inflexibility of the old system. The people have been presented with the power to make amendments, the government will always be held in tact by the people. The people of Massachusetts chose to embrace the new Constitution and let go of the ties they had to their own Constitution. The Federalists prevailed and the Constitution was ratified.

Though the one of the US Constitution’s biggest goals was to unify the people, many thought that it would do just the opposite and divide society’s powers even further. A large argument against the ratification of the constitution, especially within Massachusetts, was that there’d be a strong separation within the states; some thought that ratifying the constitution would further disconnect the classes. This argument was founded on the basis of those who wrote the Constitution itself. Citizens believed that because the writers of the Constitution were mostly part upper class Americans, that only the wealthy upper-class men and women would hold positions of power and control in the land. Also, those select believe that the power that they controlled would be absolute. These few are severely misinformed, because there are several checks and balances that keep the government in check, both by the people and within its structure.

Belief that those who hold power control absolutely only fuels the argument towards ratification of the Constitution itself. First off, anyone can hold a place in the government as long as they’re upstanding citizens, and the people wish them to hold that position. These constrictions ensure that only productive citizens are successful in attaining a political position.

In the end the federalists won and dominated over anti-federalism. The constitution was ratified and there was an agreement to accept federalism more so than anti-federalism. So the future had been set in place. Now the people of Massachusetts had a common ground and a place build up from. Now that the whole ratifying and not ratifying situation had been dealt with the country as a whole could work towards making America what it is today. Their country had finally been formed and showed structure.

Opinions

Megan:

I believe Massachusetts was just being cautious before it ratified something that would govern them for the rest of their lives. The Constitution is very important and Massachusetts just wanted to make sure that the Constitution was how they wanted it to be before ratifying it. They did end up ratifying the Constitution in the end but they were not the same as the other states.

Ericka:

Massachusetts was discerning about the ratification of the constitution. They didn’t runaround ratifying things willy nilly like the first states to ratify the constitution. Like a toad Massachusetts looked before it jumped, the other states were little frogs, they didn’t look before they jumped. After thorough examination and much debate Massachusetts ended up leaping into the glorious world of ratifying the constitution. I believe that the Massachusetts way was the best way to approach the ratifying of the Constitution. I think we all should be more like Massachusetts; they were champs at making good life choices. They analyzed the situation, strove to make it better, and then ratified the constitution like good little Americans should.

Tyler:

Since the Constitution was ratified in the end, and Massachusetts was a federalist state, I agree with their decisions and opinions. At the time, a strong centralized government was necessary. Being independent states with separate governments would not help them expand either land or control. They needed to have a stronger system that would allow them to have individual voices. Sort of like an umbrella that reached over all the states entirely was, and still is, necessary. Massachusetts was internally conflicted about the ratification of the New Constitution and was the first state to give the cause of ratifying the document trouble. Even their concerns were understandable; they did break from a centralized government, parliament, and they feared stepping back into those times. Overall, their federalist views overwhelmed their anti-federalist thoughts, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Patrick:

I stand on the Federalist side of the fight. The reason I agree with the constitution is because I agree that since all of the colonies had so much in common it would be a horrible idea to not all cooperate and function under the same government. I think that it would have been a bad idea for all of the states to run individually and have their own government for the simple fact that the colonies can all benefit from each other tremendously. It would be better because they can all use the ports and stand together in disagreements with other entities such as England.