The delegates at the Constitutional Convention were concerned mainly with?

Answer 1

There was no "mainly" about it. Can you be more precise in your question? If you will not, or cannot, I suppose the only answer I could give is somewhat obvious... They were "mainly" concerned with establishing a better constitutional arrangement.

Answer 2

Protecting the position of their own State vis-a-vis the others.This made one of the main points of contention how to apportion the legislature. (Originally, the idea was to have one legislative body, but this proved to be unworkable---if each State were to have the same number of representatives, then the larger States would suffer in relation to the smaller, and if representation were to be based on population, the effect would be the exact opposite. The resulting impasse nearly doomed the whole process until the compromise of a bicameral legislature was reached, our present day Senate and House of Representatives.
Another item of great concern was how much power and authority was to be ceded to a Central Government. No State was willing to surrender any more power than necessary, but the whole reason for the Convention was to repair shortcomings in the Articles of Confederation, so many other compromises had to be hammered out. The Constitution itself came out of the Convention with barely enough support to send it to the States for ratification, and that process too made a lot of give and take possible.
Our Founding Fathers were, rather than a group of idealistic philosophers, political men who hammered out details in a figurative "smoke filled room". Think about that the next time you or someone else complains about "crooked politicians"

Answer 3

Your question is interesting but can cover a great deal of ground. For example, the delegates came from nearly all (Rhode Island did not attend) of the various colonies (now States with their own Constitutions) and each was also a different culture with histories unique to itself. While the war had drawn this States (people) together for common cause, and many of these people knew each other, there were significant differences not only in culture, but in economics, education, and goals for future growth.

The Articles of Confederation had worked quite well for the purpose to which they were intended, that is, to conduct a war, and present a solid image to the world rather than 13 individual countries. This ‘separateness’ was clearly defined in the ‘1783 Treaty of Peace’ signed between Great Britain and the United States (as represented by the government created by the Articles of Confederation). In Article One, each State is named and defined as Free, Independent, and Sovereign.

With peace differences between States came to the fore that were less than well served by the Articles of Confederation. In addition there was a beginning of abrasiveness between the States and the ‘firm league of friendship with each other’ (Article III) began to crack. No place did new differences appear than the paying the public debt and the encouragement of trade and commerce. Needing funds the general government sent out to the States requisitions. Often the States didn’t bother respond let alone send funds. A notice was printed in the 1 October 1787 ‘New York Packet’ (and twice reprinted), to whit:

THE SUBSCRIBER has received nothing on account of the quota of this State for the present year.
(signed) Alexander Hamilton
Receiver of Continental Taxes.

The States which paid were not hesitant in voicing their bitterness to the States not paying. Clearly there was a need to address new pressures on the Articles of Confederation and yet every effort to enact new measures failed. In fact, these new States were learning how to govern and it was no sure thing that a new nation with all States working together would occur. While such as Alexander Hamilton (New York) promoted the need for a convention to address current problems, those such as Rufus King (Massachusetts) saw no need to go outside of the Continental Congress. Herein was the root of the debate, Hamilton want a new strong central government and King desired an adherence to original principles. Just looking at the maneuvering (political) to cause a Convention to actually happen is a book in itself. Once it was established, it was specifically directed to make need changes ‘within’ the existing Articles of Confederation.

The notes of James Madison of the Convention itself are the singularly the best source for the debate within the convention. As we all know, in the end there was a new Constitution written to enact a new form of government. While support for it was unanimous among the “12” States attending, it was anything but unanimous among the delegates. As Madison’s notes demonstrate, the words against a Constitution were impassioned and clear in support of the Principles of the Articles of Confederation.

Once this proposed Constitution was presented to the Continental Congress, it was sent to the States for debate and ratification (or not). The Federalist Papers represent the support side of that debate while the anti-federalist papers represent those against the Constitution. However, the individual debates within each State most clearly demonstrate both the arguments and how much of a near thing it was for the Constitution to be ratified. In part, its ratification was dependant on a political deal to initiate a Bill of Rights as the first Amendments as written and proposed by the new Congress. The Convention adopted this proposed new Constitution 17 September 1787 but it took 21 June 1788 for the first 9 States to ratify it to make it enacted. It wasn’t until 10 January 1791 that the 13th State ratified it.

The Bill of Rights (comprised of 12 Articles) was proposed to the States 25 September 1789. These first amendments (comprised of 10 Articles) to the Constitution were ratified 15 December 1791.

There was barely enough agreement to acquire ratification. I suggest that if the Founders and the foresight to see the direction of the country under the Constitution, it would never have been ratified.

Answer 4

States rights. The delegates were concerned that in forming their union, they not surrender too much authority to the federal government lest the USA end up with some homicidal moron as the absolute monarch who would scoff at the will of the people as expressed by Congress and commit acts that would cost the lives of American soldiers and ruin the economy.

Answer 5

A lot of things. This question is a little vague. They were concerned with keeping the proceedings from the public, reforming the Articles of Confederation and later devising a republican form of government. One of their main concerns was compromising over the sectional difference between the different states in order to maintain the union.

Answer 6

If your talking about McCain & Obama, they were asked on their opinions about Economic recession & rebuilding funding Future energy resources The war status & outcome International issues