The Reform of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights
Federalists and Anti-Federalists both shared some basic understandings:
The Federalists believed that a Bill of Rights was already implied in the Constitution and that it was not needed, though Anti-Federalists believed that a Bill of Rights was necessary to insure the rights of the people.
The Compromise of the Bill of Rights was not a loss for the Federalists, but rather a compromise and a reform. The Bill of Rights:
The Bill of Rights was beneficial to both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists:
- The Anti-Federalists and Federalists both wanted a new government.
- They both knew that the Articles of Confederation were failing and a new government was needed.
The Federalists believed that a Bill of Rights was already implied in the Constitution and that it was not needed, though Anti-Federalists believed that a Bill of Rights was necessary to insure the rights of the people.
The Compromise of the Bill of Rights was not a loss for the Federalists, but rather a compromise and a reform. The Bill of Rights:
- Allowed the Federalists to ratify the Constitution and insure the rights of the people.
- Reformed the nation and allowed it to survive.
- Quelled fears that the federal government would become to powerful, just as the Constitution quelled fears that the union would dissolve.
The Bill of Rights was beneficial to both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists:
- It secured ratification for the Federalists (their main goal was to ratify the Constitution and make sure it was widely accepted by the states).
- It specifically stated personal rights for the Anti-Federalists (their main goal was to secure the individual rights of the people).
Back to Ratification Go to Bill of Rights