Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

John Hogan

28 January 2005

 

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.