Bill of Rights To Protect From Tyranny

analytical Essay
768 words
768 words

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.

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that the new born nation was divided into two political sides, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification of the constitution.
  • Analyzes how the ratification of the new constitution sparked a national debate. people expected the convention to amend the articles of confederation, fearing regressing back into tyranny.
  • Analyzes how the federalists argued for a federal system as in the constitution. madison claimed that the separation of powers protected people from tyrannical abuse.
Continue ReadingCheck Writing Quality

Harness the Power of AI to Boost Your Grades!

  • Haven't found what you were looking for? Talk to me, I can help!
Continue Reading