Question

The process of ratifying the Constitution generated extensive debates. Why did the Anti-federalists object to the Constitution? What were the rejoinders/arguments of the Federalists? In your opinion, who had the better arguments and why?

This is all the information provided.

Answer 1

The Anti-federalists objected to the Constitution because they wanted the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights. The Anti-federalists felt that the Constitution gave way too much power to the central government and therefore, without the Bill of Rights there would be a genuine apprehension that the central government becomes oppressive towards the people. They also claimed that the Constitution threatened individual liberty and was failing to protect the rights of the people.

The arguments of the Federalists were that the Bill of Rights was not necessary and that the Constitution alone was enough to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens. They claimed that the central government would always act in the interest of the people and therefore the Constitution was perfect in the way it was and the Bill of Rights was not necessary.

The Anti-federalists had better arguments because they supported the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. It was their strongest argument as it provided protection to the people and their liberties, the absence of which could lead to a dangerously powerful national government.