In 1781, the Articles of Confederation were written in order to secure the states' rights. This document lacked many qualities necessary for a successful government, and therefore caused a great deal of debate concerning the ratification of a new system. Federalists advocated the passing of a new Constitution, welcoming the tie it would establish between states and the creation of a strong central government. Opposing the constitution were the anti-federalists, threatened by its ability to eliminate their liberties just as they were previously executed by King George III.
The articles of confederation established a government in which each state kept their freedom and independence (Document 1). Creators of the Articles kept the central government weak intentionally because they feared another monarchy, however, due to this powerless central government, problems arose concerning currency, different exchange rates, and a lack of an effective army or navy outside independent state militias. The founders of the Articles were not blind to these predicaments; thus, a new Constitution was drafted.
This document secured the freedoms and liberties of the drafters and the generations to come (Document 5). It also promoted the general welfare, a common defense system, domestic tranquility, and justice.
While these qualities of the constitution are constructive and positive, many felt the Constitution would ensure the return of a monarchy. George Clinton says in his anti-federalist argument, "Experience ought to tell you that when a man is at the head of an elective government invested with great powers...decisions will be made by which border on the establishment of a monarchy." (Document 3). Because of this exact concern, the creators of the Constitution created three branches of government, each with checks and balances, so one branch would not have more or less power than another. Mercy Otis Warren produces another valid point in Document...