The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were realists. They knew that the greatest battles would take place after the convention, once the Constitution had already been drafted and signed. The delegates had overstepped their bounds. Instead of amending the Articles of Confederation by which the American states had previously been governed, they had proposed an entirely new government. Under these circumstances, the convention was understandably reluctant to submit its work to the Congress for approval.
Instead, the delegates decided to pursue what amounted to a revolutionary course. They declared that ratification of the new Constitution by nine states would be sufficient to establish the new government. In other words, the Constitution was being submitted directly to the people. Not even the Congress, which had called the convention, would be asked to approve its work.
The leaders of the convention shrewdly wished to bypass the state legislatures, which were attached to states' rights and which required in most cases the agreement of two houses. For speedy ratification of the Constitution, the single-chambered, specially elected state ratifying conventions offered the greatest promise of agreement.
Battle lines were quickly drawn. The Federalists, as the supporters of the Constitution were called, had one solid advantage: they came with a concrete proposal. Their opponents, the Antifederalists, came with none. Since the Antifederalists were opposing something with nothing, their objections, though sincere, were basically negative. They stood for a policy of drift while the Federalists were providing clear leadership.
Furthermore, although the Antifederalists claimed to be the democratic group, their opposition to the Constitution did not necessarily spring from a more democratic view of government. Many of the Antifederalists were as distrustful of the common people as their opponents. In New York, for example, Governor George Clinton criticized the people for their fickleness and their tendency to "vibrate from one extreme to another." Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who refused to sign the Constitution, asserted that "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy," and John F. Mercer of Maryland professed little faith in his neighbors as voters when he said that "the people cannot know and judge the character of candidates."
Which of the following would be the most appropriate title for the passage?
(A) Divided Leadership at the Constitutional Convention
(B) How the Constitution Became Law
(C) The U.S. Constitution: Its Strengths and Weaknesses
(D) The Battle for Ratification of the Constitution
(E) The Views of the Antifederalists on Democracy
OA D. I went to B. As I understand, the "title of the passage" questions are similar to "primary concerns", "main idea", etc. ones. Ie the answer should be relevant to the whole passage and summarize the main idea. For me both options relate to the whole passage and describe the main idea. Could smb explain what I missed?
Instead, the delegates decided to pursue what amounted to a revolutionary course. They declared that ratification of the new Constitution by nine states would be sufficient to establish the new government. In other words, the Constitution was being submitted directly to the people. Not even the Congress, which had called the convention, would be asked to approve its work.
The leaders of the convention shrewdly wished to bypass the state legislatures, which were attached to states' rights and which required in most cases the agreement of two houses. For speedy ratification of the Constitution, the single-chambered, specially elected state ratifying conventions offered the greatest promise of agreement.
Battle lines were quickly drawn. The Federalists, as the supporters of the Constitution were called, had one solid advantage: they came with a concrete proposal. Their opponents, the Antifederalists, came with none. Since the Antifederalists were opposing something with nothing, their objections, though sincere, were basically negative. They stood for a policy of drift while the Federalists were providing clear leadership.
Furthermore, although the Antifederalists claimed to be the democratic group, their opposition to the Constitution did not necessarily spring from a more democratic view of government. Many of the Antifederalists were as distrustful of the common people as their opponents. In New York, for example, Governor George Clinton criticized the people for their fickleness and their tendency to "vibrate from one extreme to another." Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who refused to sign the Constitution, asserted that "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy," and John F. Mercer of Maryland professed little faith in his neighbors as voters when he said that "the people cannot know and judge the character of candidates."
Which of the following would be the most appropriate title for the passage?
(A) Divided Leadership at the Constitutional Convention
(B) How the Constitution Became Law
(C) The U.S. Constitution: Its Strengths and Weaknesses
(D) The Battle for Ratification of the Constitution
(E) The Views of the Antifederalists on Democracy
OA D. I went to B. As I understand, the "title of the passage" questions are similar to "primary concerns", "main idea", etc. ones. Ie the answer should be relevant to the whole passage and summarize the main idea. For me both options relate to the whole passage and describe the main idea. Could smb explain what I missed?
Last edited by kvitkod on Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
so no point solving this now.
