User:Danielhix64/sandbox

Federalists vs. Anti-federalists DBQ Essay

A new Constitution for America had just been written and there was already dispute over its contents. Those who liked it were called Federalists. Those who did not were named Anti-federalists. The Federalists claimed that the new constitution was written in such a way so that under it, the U.S. government could never become too powerful. The Anti-federalists had many complaints including that the President was given too much power and the states didn’t have enough sovereignty. However, their biggest and perhaps most valid complaint, was that there was nothing protecting individuals’ rights. The Anti-federalists’ concern regarding the lack of protection of individuals’ rights were justified but their other complaints were not. When the Anti-federalists were worried about the Constitution not protecting the rights of individuals they were very justified. The rights of the people had long been protected in similar English documents. That was so the government could not take away basic rights from the people. Therefore, it only makes sense that just after the American colonists had won their independence from what they viewed as an oppressive nation that something would be done to protect the people’s rights. The anonymous writer of An Antifederalist Argues His Case said it best when he said, “There is no reason…we should…adopt a system which is imperfect or insecure.” Furthermore, while the Federalists could defeat nearly every point the Anti-federalists made, this one of the few they could not. The Federalists could not solve the problem of individuals’ rights with the original Constitution. Those are the reasons the Anti-federalists were justified in this complaint. While the Anti-federalists’ complaint about a lack of protection of basic rights had substance and was justified, their other complaints did not. Some of their other concerns were that the President was given too much power and could make himself a king. They also claimed that the national government had was too controlling of the states’ governments. However, in the Federalist Papers, Federalists thoroughly slaughtered these arguments. In these essays it was pointed out that since each branch of the government would have power over the other two, no one branch could become more powerful than the others. Furthermore, in A Farmer Speaks for the Constitution the writer says, “I had been a member of the convention to from our own state constitution, and had learnt something of the checks and balances of power and I found them all…with this Constitution.” For the second argument it was also pointed out that since the states dealt with local issues and the federal government with national issues, the national government could never fully control the states’ governments. It is for these reasons that the Anti-federalists were wrong in these complaints. The basic fact was that the Constitution didn’t protect the basic rights of the people and that’s why the Anti-federalists were justified in complaining about this. However, the Constitution was otherwise virtually perfect and that’s why the Anti-federalists were wrong in their other complaints. Whenever an important event occurs there is always a very god reason for it. It is usually a concern or the people involved with the issue are looking to make their lives better in some way. This is the case with the constitution of the United States and the ratification thereof. When dealing with the constitution the founding fathers had many concerns that were involved when trying to ratify it. Social, political, and economic concerns were the main categories that were dealt with during this time period. Because of all the problems they were facing at the time, and all the concerns they had for the future, the founding fathers ratified the constitution believing that it would make their country better for the people. Political concerns were very prevalent when dealing with the ratification of the Constitution. Ever since the Virginia plan which called for two houses, one which is made up based on population, and the other made up by elections of the lower house, there have been major political controversies. When writing the constitution this was considered greatly. In the Anti-federalist Papers "Brutus" says, "The great art, therefore, in forming a good constitution, appears to be this, so to frame it . . . There is no possible way to affect this but by an equal, full and fair representation." This shows how there was great concern for the type of representation the U.S. people would receive. Because of this the founders said how the country would be divided in the constitution. Edmund Randolph of Virginia said A national government. . . ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. Also "Brutus" states that "If they (the branches of government) are exactly balanced, the Government will remain perfect; if there is a preponderancy, it will firmly prevail." This letter shows how the fear of an unbalanced government was very large during this time period. The way the founding fathers set up the government in the constitution shows how they took great care not to unbalance power and how this was another primary concern when ratifying the constitution. Bold text