|
|
Federalist Than Nothing At All
What really struck me as thought provoking regarding the Constitutional ratification debates of 1787 was the idea of agricultural or rural opposition to the ratification of the United States Constitution following the American War for Independence. The idea that the anti-Federalists were worried as to whether or not their rights would be guaranteed in writing seems to be a perfectly logical worry in not only an eighteenth century context, but a twenty-first century one as well. When I look back in historical hindsight at that compromise between the Federalists and anti-Federalists, I see the United States at a metaphorical crossroad. In other words, in the brief years following The Revolution, the entire American system of self-government was threatened by the prospect of the emergence of a constitutional monarchy. I was surprised to hear in the rather humorous video that someone like Alexander Hamilton was opposed to guaranteeing a Bill of Rights for the citizens of this new nation. What really floored me was his somewhat condescending attitude towards anti-Federalists and their concerns for guaranteed freedoms. Essentially, he states that they wouldn’t need any rights written down, because the Government (that capitalized, all-encompassing entity) would take care of everyone. I feel that any politician who approaches you and demands that you entrust your freedoms and safety to himself (or herself) based upon faith in him/her and the State has the makings of a future dictator. To that, I say this handy slogan, “Corruption: An equal-opportunity destroyer.”
|
|
Comments