Publius and Brutus – The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Debate
Context: The Constitutional Convention took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to
address problems in governing the United States of America, which had been operating under the Articles of
Confederation following independence from Great Britain. Although the Convention was intended to revise the Articles
of Confederation, the intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and
Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The delegates elected George
Washington to preside over the Convention. The result of the Convention was the creation of the United States
Constitution, placing the Convention among the most significant events in the history of the United States.
Directions: You will be split up into two teams. One team will take on the persona of the Anti-federalists while the other
will become the Federalists. Read and analyze the following primary sources (Federalist #84 and Brutus II). As a class, we
will debate the necessity of a Bill of Rights, ultimately leaving it up to a seven judge panel to decide.
Document 1 – The Federalist #84
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their
subjects. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to
constitutions. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of
particular reservations.
But a tiny detail of particular rights is certainly far less related to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is
only meant to control the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of
every species of personal and private concerns.
I go further and affirm that bills of rights are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be
dangerous. For why declare that things will not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be
said that the freedom of the press will not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
It is obvious that a bill of rights would furnish to a man a reasonable dishonesty for claiming that power.
Source: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84 – A Bill of Rights Would be Dangerous, published under the
pseudonym Publius
Document 2 – Brutus II
To the Citizens of the State of New-York.
I flatter myself that my last address established this position, that to reduce the Thirteen States into one government,
would prove the destruction of your liberties. It is evident, that the reason here assigned was not the true one, why
the framers of this constitution omitted a bill of rights. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers, which the
bills of right, guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this constitution.
This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms, in the 6th article, "That this constitution and the laws of the United
States made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
state shall be bound thereby.
It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby, but positively expressed: That the different state constitutions are
repealed and entirely done away.
Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to be restricted by a declaration of rights?
It certainly ought.
So clear a point is this that I cannot help suspect that people who attempt to convince you of the needlessness of a bill
of rights are intentionally and stubbornly trying to fool and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.
Source: Robert Yates, Anti-Federalist Papers, published November 1, 1787, under the pseudonym Brutus