Were the Anti-Federalists Correct Was the 1787 Constitution a Betrayal Essay

Were the Anti-Federalists Correct Was the 1787 Constitution a Betrayal of the American Revolution - Essay Example The push and the predicted effects of the constitution however created opposing forces to the ratification of the U.S. constitution. The federalists strongly supported the constitution and its formation of the central government because the formerly relied confederation articles were ineffective, and a strong national government would be able to control uncooperative states and excess powers of foreign policies that affected the U.S., and protect the right of its people who had delegated their powers back to the government. The anti-federalists had raised several objections over the approval of the constitution by the states and their population with respect to the envisioned ramifications, arguing that it would burden Americans in their future. Earlier on, the anti-federalist warned that State power would be threatened by a strong national government, where the centre of gravity would shift to the national government (â€Å"Antifederalists† gps.edu). Although power sharing be tween the national and States’ government was supported by both, the risk of giving too much power as supremacy to the national government at the expense of the States would be high. Considering the challenges facing the new republic, federal opposition â€Å"insisted that the freedom won by the Revolution would be best preserved not by expanding the power of the national government but by tightly circumscribing its power† (Mooney 51).... The anti-federalists objections pushed federalists to include a bill of rights to guarantee civil liberties to the people. The aim of the opposition on the bill of rights was to limit the powers of the central government to prevent intrusion into the state powers. To both of the parties’ achievements, the bill was later adopted and the few states which were reluctant to ratify the constitution became convinced. First of all, the 10th amendment of the constitution only clarified the existing enumeration powers of the federal government, but refused to adjust its powers to make a change. As a result, the States felt obliged to support the constitution, due to the assurance of the tenth amendment, which confirmed that powers not delegated to the central government would reside with the respective States (Mooney 58). In other words, it was a meander to achieve support of the states by limiting the federal government the right to interfere with individuals and not the state. Nothin g was new because individuals were already protected by the bill of rights in the respective States constitutions; the only change was its further inclusion in the national constitution, yet the federal powers over war, taxes, commerce, and implied powers were not restricted by the amendment (Dry 5). Today everyone realizes and sympathizes with the anti- federalist opposition for their fear of constitution to leave out the bill of rights that turned out to be very essential. Even with the 1st enactment of the bill of rights, suppressive scenarios like the approval of the Alien and Sedition Acts that threatened foreigners’ liberty, and seriously limited freedom of speech and especially of the press affirmed anti-federalist argument. The inclusion of the bill of