Brighid Mallon 2.

08 Assign 12-16-10

In the late 1780’s the Articles of the Confederation were created to try and unite the
states. Instead there was a lack of central government and the individual states grew stronger
rather than the unit. Some of the bigger states felt that the smaller states were getting a better
advantage since they had an equal vote. It was clear that something else would have to take its
place. In the summer of 1787 the United States Constitution emerged with much controversy.
Individuals in opposition argued that this new government would not be sufficient enough or
beneficial, that individual states would lose their rights and fight against each other, and that
congress would abuse the proper and necessary clause and raise armies. Supporters on the other
hand solved these problems by creating the Bill of Rights which prevented governments from
abusing their power and giving individuals equal rights, and also arguing that although military
could be raised it could not be put into action without probable cause.

After leaving a government ruled by an absolute despot, it was hard for many people to
accept that a new form of government would work. Some were afraid that the rulers would abuse
their powers and the entire union would come crumbling down. Patrick Henry said in a speech
ratifying the constitution, “… one government cannot reign over so extensive a country as this,
without absolute despotism.” (Doc A) He goes on to say, “The president and senators have
nothing to lose…They will, therefore, be regardless of the interests of the people.” Patrick Henry
was a politician and leader of the Virginia anti-federalists. Anti-federalists were opposed to the
constitution in fear that the states right would disappear. He was bias in his quote because of this
and his fears were rather public. In response congress passed the Bill of Rights. This bill was
intended to prevent any abuse from happening and accompany the constitution and stop any
worries that protesters may have had. In the preamble it reads, “The Conventions of a number of
the states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to
prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses
should be added…” (Doc H) In the end the federalist solution was sufficient enough for the
republicans and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has gone to serve the country of the
United States for more than 200 years.

Not only did the Bill of Rights solve the problem of the government but also state and
individual rights. Another fear that the republicans had, were that individual states would not
receive the appropriate rights that suited each one. George Clinton wrote, “this unkindred
legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in nature, will in its exercise,
emphatically be like a house divided against itself…” It was a fear that lack of rights would turn
each state against one another and that some states would have more rights than others and one
another. The Bill of Rights once again fixed this problem. In The Address and Reasons of
Dissent it reads, “The first consideration that this review suggests, is the omission of a Bill of
Rights, ascertaining and fundamentally establishing those unalienable and personal rights of
men, without the full, free, and secure enjoyment of which there can be no liberty, and over to
which it is not necessary for a good government to have the control.” (Doc B) By securing these
rights all individuals and states were equal and had no reason to turn against one another.

The last major fear of those opposed the constitution was that the congress would misuse
the Necessary and Proper Clause to build an army. The New York Journal published an article
titled Brutus which read, “The power to raise armies is indefinite and unlimited, and authorises
the raising forces, as well in peace as in war. Whether the clause which impowers the Congress
to pass all laws which are proper and necessary, to carry this into execution, will not authorise
them to impress men for the army, is a question well worthy consideration?”(Doc E) The fear of
having an army lingering over the country was a very big threat and the clause not only allowed
this but other potential issues that the congress could say were exceptions to the constitution. In
response it was argued that the congress may raise an army but would have no use for them
whatsoever. Noah Webster wrote, “Congress likewise are to have the power to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but have no other command of them, except
when in actual service.” (Doc F) This argument may not have been the strongest but it was good
enough that in the end the constitution was passed.

Although there was much controversy following the constitution, supporters argued the
case well enough that it has remained in action for the past 200 years. When there were doubts
about the government, state rights, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Bill of rights was
enacted and arguments settled any fears. The very history and existence of America is founded
on this constitution and it has served the country well.