The Anti-Federalist Papers is a very interesting book about the development of the United States government and disagreements with its early documents by Ralph Ketchum. The introduction of the book is written by Ketchum, however, the resources in it were published in 1787-1788 in Philadelphia after the Constitutional Settlement. The introduction gives us a brief understanding and context on the development of the Constitution from the time of the Stamp Act to the Declaration of Independence. Many of the rejected forms of tradition and authority required different thinking or changes that were already weak in the New World, and independence provided a lot of realistic information that seemed to work. Furthermore, Ketchum explains the description of these experiments in the later colonies, which tell us what the Founders meant by democracy and monarchy. The internal conflicts caused by the diversity of the regions and the problems faced by the Founders in not being able to work with traditional fiefdoms as bishops are then discussed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plus Ketchum shows us a trailer about the contents of the book; about the debates over the Constitution and the efforts made by the Federalists Papers, for example, to resolve it, and by the Anti-Federalist Papers in response to them. The main idea of ​​the introduction is based on the Federalists Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. The Debates of the Constitutional Convention While the book begins with a letter sent to George Washington by James Madison, the first part of the book concerns the debates of the Constitutional Convention (May-September). Here we see a range of ideas, some rejected, some not, for the federal government. As we read the introduction we realize that Virginia undermines the initial actions by going beyond amending the Article of Confederation by proposing a new constitution. No doubt there were some people who wanted a stronger national government and attempted to remove state governments. As you continue reading, you will find a better attitude in the framework of debates than that of modern politics, with the doors open for ordinary people to be involved in state affairs, expressed by many representatives. The enormous effort made to identify the right number of representatives stands out. Today there is a lack of concern among representatives about what politicians will do in terms of power and interests. It also turns out that money interests would have had as much power over state affairs then as they do now. The pursuit and creation of good government was well recognized, but not easy for the founders. There was a wide range of offerings aimed at the executive division, as experienced founders gave them a break in building a strong executive. If that had happened, there would have been more than one president of the United States, and perhaps he or she would have received no salary or duties other than simply implementing laws. Just as is the case in many democratic systems, Congress's choice of President, which would have yielded different results, was almost implemented near the end of the Convention. Among the delegates, mass democracy is simply support for majority rule. To resolve the many different positions on the election of the executive, a system called the Electoral College was created. The very interesting part of the Constitutional Convention is when the judges take into account what speaks more to the separation of powers, because almost none of them knew how this branch would become more powerful than it already is. This type of concern is usually raised by the executive branches. It was more focused than yes.