what did the antifederalits propose before ratification?

Question

can you give me two reasons please?

and how was the oppsition settled and what did they promise them?
when was the consitution ratified

Answer 1

The Constitution was ratified 21 June 1788.

During the Convention thee was an agreement that one of the first items of business for the new Congress under the ratified Constitution would be to write and propose to the States a Bill of Rights which would be in a form to be amended to the Constitution.

On August thirtieth the Convention reach debate for the XXI article which was, "The ratification of the Conventions of __ States shall be sufficient for organization of this Constitution"

This was controversial in the extreme in that under the Articles of Confederation all thirteen States were require to agree. Delegate James Wilson (a member of the Continental Congress which devised and ratified the Articles of Confederation) moved that the number seven fill in the blank, meaning that only a simple majority would be required. With debate the number nine was agreed to fill in the blank which was a support for the Anti-Federalists since it made it very iffy as to whether the Constitution would be ratified or not.

The key to understanding the Anti-Federalists is, that as much as possible, they intended to retain the vitality of local government where rulers and ruled could see, know, and understand each other. Thus they cherished the Revolutionary emphasis on State and local councils and committees. In the perspective of the Anti-Federalist a positive element of the Articles of Confederation was that the central government rested entirely on the States.

The idea of self government was tied inextricably to something like a town meeting directness or at least a State legislature of many annually elected representatives who would really know the people of their districts. Most significantly, each district would be a town or ward or region conscious of its own, particular identity rather than being some amorphous, arbitrary geographic entity. In the view of the anti-federalist only with such intimacy could the trust, good will, and deliberation essential to wise and virtuous public life be a reality.

With an understanding of this foundation of the Anti-federalist it is easy to see why there was such a wide divergence between the federalist and the Anti-federalist. Although the Constitution, with some adjustments, was ratified, this debate continued with the federalist not only winning, but over the next 70 odd years becoming increasingly extreme in developing a strong federal government isolated from control of the States.

Answer 2

Two of the more interesting "deals" that were struck were these:

1) There was a 20 year hiatus on creating ANY legislation that outlawed slavery. This handshake agreement enabled the powerful southern states to consider adopting a Federalist structure. The subtlety here is that the States Rights advocates thought they had themselves covered with the clause that all rights not expressively stated in the Constitution are retained by the individual States.

2) The final location for the capital of the Nation would be in the South (Washington DC).

In both of these instances, backroom good ol' boy power politics and deals made the difference.

Answer 3

The anti-federalists wanted a Bill of Rights that would guarantee the basic rights of the citizens and limit the power of the national government.

The Federalists eventually agreed that a list of rights would be added as the first action of Congress after ratification. The Federalists didn't want to open the Consitution to changes pre-ratification because they feared every Tom Dick and Harry putting in their two cents and creating a monstrosity of a document that wouldn't achieve ratification.

The Constitution was ratified in 1788.