Bill of Rights To Protect From Tyranny

768 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The causes and impacts of the American Revolution

After the Constitution was written, the new born nation was immediately split into two political sides, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification. Federalists, southern planters or people that tended to hold interest in trade, advocated a strong executive. On the other hand, anti-federalists, back country people or people involved in business but not in the mercantile economy, opposed the ratification of the constitution. The two sides, after much debate, were able to come to a compromise after the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution. When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste. Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists, a name referring to a balance of power between the states and the national government. They argued for a federal system as in the Constitution. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous that it looked because the separation of powers protected people from tyrannical abuse. The Federalists compile a group of essays, known as The Federalist Papers. In No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and they system of checks an balances would protect Americans from the tyranny of centralized authority. He wrote that opposite motives among government office holders were good, and was one of the advantages of a big government with different demographics. In No. 10, he said that there was no need to fear factions, for not enough power would be given to the faction forming people; thus, they wouldn't become tyrannical. Hamilton, in No. 84, defended the Constitution with the case that the Constitution can be amended by representatives, who are there to represent the citizens' interests. Opponents of the ratifications were less organized. They were named Anti-Federalists after the entire issue. The anti-federalists were weary of placing great power in a single point of execution because it would go against the whole idealistic point of the revolutionary war, which was to get away from the tyranny of the king.

Show More
Related

  • Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

    348 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.

    Read More

  • Federalist 51 Summary

    661 Words  | 2 Pages

    Federalist 51 is an essay written by James Madison in support of the creation of the United States Constitution which would serve as the replacement for the faulty Articles of Confederation. Madison along with several other federalists wrote a series of anonymous essays that eventually became to be known as the Federalist Papers. The purpose of these essays was to inform the public about the suggested structure for the new government that would protect our natural rights. Madison’s paper Federalist 51 outlines a description of the foundation of the new government where each branch of the government would have its own unique and separate powers exclusive to that branch and the power to check and balance the other branches.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Federalists

    835 Words  | 2 Pages

    The leaders of the anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry from Virginia, George Mason from Virginia, Richard Henry Lee from Virginia, James Monroe from Virginia, George Clinton from New York, Samuel Adams from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts, Luther Martin from Maryland, and Samuel Chase from Maryland. The anti-Federalist leaders were men who had their careers and reputations already established. The anti-Federalists were the losers in the Constitution debate. They had accepted their defeat very well. They did not attempt to create problems and start fights or wars. Instead some leaders became well-known leaders in the government. James Monroe was the fifth president. George Clinton, along with Elbridge Gerry became vice presidents. Samuel Chase was in the Supreme Court. The anti-Federalists brought awareness to the subject matter of giving more power to the government and how dangerous it could be. They thought the Constitution could be improved with a bill of rights. They brought awareness to why our government needed to include a bill of rights. They wanted one to protect the rights of the people and the states. The anti-Federalists found the ratification process unreliable. They were correct because the Articles of Confederation stated it being

    Read More

  • Dbq The Beliefs Of The Federalist And Anti-Federalists

    576 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals such as all men were born equal (even though most of these men owned slaves), but their opinions about the role of government were different. Both parties had their own visions of how a new government would function and how the Constitution would support the government being proposed. Many argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government with very limited power. Specifically, the amount of power or the absence of power of a central government was the main disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As a result, the Federalists and Anti-federalists argued about the ratification of a new constitution, which would give the central government more power.

    Read More

  • How the Constitution Guards Against Tyranny

    642 Words  | 2 Pages

    James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.

    Read More

  • National Salvation V. Counter revolution

    613 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the American Revolution, the colonists were completely resentful towards their British 'king'. They yearned for their own government, and to finally set themselves apart from George III's rule and his legislation. When the Articles of Confederation were mandated, the expectation was to provide the colonies with a stable government. The Articles were then replaced by the Constitution, which had corresponding values. Essentially the document was written to salvage and improve the new government. The Constitution did many positive things for the nation, and was the perfect remedy for the failures of of the Articles. However, it is manifest that the authors of the document were not as honorable as they may have been assumed to be. How they drafted the document and the bias they have put into it is still greatly effects us. The Constitution is a counter-revolution because it contradicts the fails of the Articles, and is evident that some authors had more self-beneficial and narrow mindsets.

    Read More

  • The Federalist No.'s 10 and 51

    433 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Federalist, No. 10, by James Madison is a clear expression of views and policies for a new government. Madison was a strong supporter and member of the Federalists whose main beliefs favored the Constitution. They also believed that the Articles of Confederation needed to be rewritten so that a new central government would control the power of the states.

    Read More

  • Examples Of The Federalist Paper And Government Today

    1034 Words  | 3 Pages

    In The Federalist Papers by James Madison, Madison discuses various aspects of government and how the government must be organized in order to better represent the people. In The Federalist, No. 10 Madison discusses the nature of political factions and parties and how they can affect the government and its practices. The Federalist, No. 51 discusses instead how the government being in branches helps maintain liberties and better protect the American people. The topics mentioned in The Federalist Papers continue to explain and structure our government today.

    Read More

  • Articles Of Confederation Dbq Analysis

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in

    Read More

  • Federalist #10

    935 Words  | 2 Pages

    Madison begins perhaps the most famous of the Federalist papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interests, and infringe upon the rights of others.

    Read More

  • Hamilton Argues Against A Bill Of Rights

    994 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed in an all too dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.

    Read More

  • Essay On Ratification Of The Constitution

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the

    Read More

  • Democracy In The 19th Century

    1358 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.

    Read More

  • American Revolution and its Aftermath

    1157 Words  | 3 Pages

    The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.

    Read More

  • Preventing Tyranny: The Power of the Constitution

    1370 Words  | 3 Pages

    The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.

    Read More

More about Bill of Rights To Protect From Tyranny

Open Document