Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti-Federalists Dbq

581 Words3 Pages
Two opposing sides. Months of fierce debate. The fate of a young country at stake. In 1787, the newly independent United States proposed a new plan of government. The proposal set off a heated dispute between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. The Federalists and anti-Federalists made certain arguments to support or oppose the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. On one hand, the Federalists claimed that the ratification of the Constitution would, in turn, resolve the troubles that barraged society. In contrast, the anti-Federalists found the Constitution not steady enough to maintain justice and to protect human rights. To begin, the Federalists argued that ratifying the Constitution was necessary because of the instability of the states…show more content…
According to Document 2, the Constitution was not secure enough. The Constitution did not have restrictions put in place in order to prevent a political office from ruling for life. The possibilities of the U.S. government transforming into a monarchy were too high, making it ideal to not ratify the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution posed a threat to those less wealthy. Document 5 expressed the concerns of the people, stating, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men … make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill”. In other words, the Constitution, written by educated, rich men, would grant more power to those already in a high position. To add to this, the anti-Federalists stated that Constitution was not secure enough to uphold citizens’ rights. The Constitution would be responsible for the endangerments of human rights such as trial by jury and liberty of the press. The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they thought it was an unfitting solution, which would lead the U.S. down the same path of injustice as Great Britain

More about Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti-Federalists Dbq

Open Document