Comparing The Federalists And Antifederalist During The Constitutional Convention Of 1787

The United States has a government of laws, not of men. While individuals are in charge of the United States Government, the Constitution is the dogma guiding the decision-making of those in power. After the American colonies declared independence from Great Britain, the collective colonies constructed their first written constitution: The Articles of Confederation. A decade later, the colonies saw the shortfalls of the Articles of Confederation, and came together at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Like in contemporary politics, two factions controlled the Convention of 1787: the Federalists and Antifederalists. Even though the two sides disagreed on much, the two sides had the same core concerns. Because of their English roots, the colonists were concerned with limiting governmental power and protecting liberty. To limit governmental power, the framers used Montesquieu’s idea of separation of power. When it came to liberty however, some individuals were entitled to more liberty than others. Namely, African slaves were not entitled to English liberty in America. This hypocrisy was largely debated while constructing the new constitution in 1787. The largest debate was how democratic the new regime would be. While both the federalists and antifederalists wanted to prevent tyranny, the federalists wanted to prevent “excessive democracy.”

The main debate was about individual rights. Originally, the Constitution lacked a bill of rights. Anti-federalists insisted that a bill of rights be added to the Constitution to expressly grant freedoms to the country. On the other hand, federalist James Madison believed the Constitution was enough, and adding a bill of rights was unnecessary. As southern states did with slavery, antifederalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights. Because of this, the bill of rights was added to the