Which was an argument against ratification of the Constitution? (1 point)
A Bill of Rights is not necessary.
The Ohio Plan should be used.
A strong national government will become oppressive.
A strong national government is necessary for national security.
A
In the US?
In a state? If so, which one?
in the us yes
Read the sections on The Federalists, The Anti-Federalists, and Reaction in the States here:
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
This is also very good:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit2_13.pdf
Remember that when the Constitution was first sent out for ratification, the Bill of Rights had not been written yet.
so its C ?
I agree.
To determine which of the listed options is an argument against ratification of the Constitution, we need to assess the statements individually.
Option 1: "A Bill of Rights is not necessary."
This statement supports the ratification of the Constitution, as it suggests that a Bill of Rights is not needed because the Constitution adequately protects individual rights. Therefore, it is not an argument against ratification.
Option 2: "The Ohio Plan should be used."
The Ohio Plan is not directly related to the ratification of the Constitution. It was a proposed alternative governance plan that aimed to divide the territories into distinct states. Although it may have influenced discussions during the ratification process, it is not a direct argument against ratification by itself.
Option 3: "A strong national government will become oppressive."
This statement is an argument against the ratification of the Constitution. It suggests that if a strong national government is established, it may become oppressive and infringe upon individual rights. This argument was put forth by Anti-Federalists who advocated for stronger state governments and feared the concentration of power in a centralized authority.
Option 4: "A strong national government is necessary for national security."
This statement supports the ratification of the Constitution by arguing that a strong national government is essential for maintaining national security. Therefore, it is not an argument against ratification.
Given this analysis, the correct answer is option 3: "A strong national government will become oppressive."