Learning Goal: 2

1. Learning Goal: 2 TSW understand significant documents, key individuals and early political development of the new American nation.

2. Federalist versus Anti-Federalist The Debate over the Bill of Rights

3. Put it to a Vote • The Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 states before it could become law • The plan for ratification was written in Article 7 of the Constitution • Supporters tried to get the Constitution ratified quickly so that critics would not have time to organize

4. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists • Federalists were people who supported the Constitution • Anti-Federalists were people who fought against the Constitution • The debates between these two groups would last 10 months • It was an intense and sometimes bitter political struggle

5. The Federalist Cause • Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were leaders of the Federalist arguments • They wrote a series of articles in support of the Constitution for a New York newspaper • These articles are now called the Federalist Papers

6. The Anti-Federalist Cause • Anti-Federalist leaders included George Mason, Edmund Randolph, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry • Many of these men had attended the Constitutional Convention, but refused to sign the document • Patrick Henry became the leading voice in opposition to a strong national government

7. 3 Basic Questions • Most of the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had to do with 3 basic questions: • 1. Whether the new Constitution would maintain a republican form of government • 2. Whether the national government would have too much power • 3. Whether a Bill of Rights was needed in the Constitution

8. On Republican Government • Anti-federalists argued: Republican governments can only work in small communities. The new nation was so large and diverse that people would not be able to agree on what is best for their common welfare. • Federalists argued: A large republic, with checks and balances, would be better than a small republic. In small republics, special interests are everywhere. In a large republic, it would be much harder for special interests to violate the common welfare.

9. On the fear of tyranny… • Anti-federalists argued: The national government would be located too far from most people’s communities to allow them to participate. The result would be tyranny. • Federalists argued: The national government would gain the loyalty and support of the people. It could not become a tyranny because of the limitations placed on it by the system of checks and balances and separation of powers

10. On the Power of the National Government • Anti-federalists argued: The national government would have too much power at the expense of the state governments. The supremacy clause means that all the national government’s laws are superior to state’s laws. • Federalists argued: It is true that the national government would have more power, but its powers are limited to tasks that face the entire nation (trade, currency, and defense). The Constitution provides adequate protections to the state governments.

11. On a Bill of Rights • Anti-federalists argued: The Constitution does not include a Bill of Rights which is essential to protect individuals against the power of the national government. • Federalists argued: A Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the powers of the government are limited. A Bill of Rights could give the impression that the people could only expect protection of those rights that were actually listed.

12. The agreement to add a Bill of Rights • A compromise was reached on the issue of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists made this compromise to get enough support for the Constitution to be ratified. • The addition of a Bill of Rights was a victory for the Anti-federalists. It was an important addition and has been protecting the basic rights of American people ever since.