Works Cited

Primary Sources: 7

"Brutus I." New York Journal 18 Oct. 1787. Print. Federalists and Antifederalists. Vol. I.
Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House, 1989. 4-13. Constitutional Heritage Ser.

The first of a group of 16 essays called "Brutus". The author of the essays is unknown,
but they all take an Anti-Federalist perspective. This essay discusses if the Constitution is
the right course of action to form the new American government. It argues how the
government will have supreme power and that the people will have none. This article
shows how many people were afraid that their new government would end up controlling
them just like Britain did.

"Brutus II." New York Journal 1 Nov. 1787. Print. Federalists and Antifederalists. Vol. I.
Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House, 1989. 159-64. Constitutional Heritage Ser.

This is another essay from the Anti-Federalist papers titled "Brutus". This specific essay
talks about the issue of the Bill of Rights. It discusses that the government would attempt
to gain more power than it needs and that its people would have to give up their liberties.
“13 states in 1 government would destroy liberty” is what is stated in the article. It states
that no one has the power to take away other people’s rights. The article says how
the Bill of Rights would help protect these essential rights of the people.

Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist authored by Alexander Hamilton October 1787- August 1788

The Federalist Papers were a collection of 85 articles and essays most likely written by
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. They were all put together in a book titled The Federalist or
The New Constitution. The reason for them being written was the influence the thoughts
of Americans so they would vote for the ratification of the Constitution, but they are also
a great outline of the newly proposed government. They address each section of the
Constitution, going over all the details of it, highlighting the areas that are the most
"revolutionary" and all around beneficiary to the nation. Some examples of the articles
are the general power of taxation, and the total number of the House of Representatives.
A few of these essays can be found on this site, and they can give the reader a great
perspective on what was happening at the time, and how the Federalists really felt about
it.
Hamilton, Alexander. "Publius: The Federalist 84." The Independent Journal (1788). Rpt. in
Federalists and Antifederalists. Vol. I. Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House, 1989.
172-77. Print. Constitutional Heritage Ser.

A primary source written by the prominent Federalist Alexander Hamilton. This essay
was part of the Federalist Papers, a group of 85 articles and essays that spoke in favor of
the Constitution. Like many Americans at the time, Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of
Rights. The Constitution, he felt, already protected the people’s rights and that the
Bill of Rights was not necessary, and that it could even be dangerous in some ways. He
also presents the idea that many people would feel that the rights mentioned in the
document were their only rights. His viewpoints conflict greatly with Anti-Federalists,
such as the writers of “Brutus”. This shows the tension between the different points of
view of the two groups.

Madison, James. James Madison's Notes On the Constitutional Convention of 1787 May-
September 1787

During the constitutional convention of 1787, many of those who were in attendance took
their own personal notes on what the topic was for the day. James Madison took notes on
every day they were in attendance. He wrote about all the major arguments or subjects of
the day. For example, the first day of the convention was May 25, and there were not
many in attendance to hear some of the guidelines that were set up for the convention. It
goes on through every day that he was there, and tells of every argument brought up, and
how each of these was dealt with. The reactions to the original Constitution proposed are
very well portrayed in Madison's notes, and these are coming from the framers
themselves. This source is a perfect resource to so exactly what the founding fathers were
deciding through those months of the convention.

Madison, James. "Publius: The Federalist 39." The Independent Journal 18 Jan. 1788. Print.
Federalists and Antifederalists. Vol. I. Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House, 1989.
21-26. Constitutional Heritage Ser.

Written by the well known and influential Federalist James Madison. This essay, like all
of the others in The Federalist Papers, speaks in favor of the Constitution. James Madison
attempts to explain the government that would be set up with the new constitution. He
says how the government will have a balance of power with the people having a say in
the way their nation is run. With this form of government, Madison believes that power
will be distributed evenly so that there will be no large concentration of power that could
take advantage of the nation’s people. Many people are worried that if there is too much
power in the government, the nation will revert back to what it was like with Britain as its
ruler. However, James Madison was confident that this would not happen.
Mason, George. Virginia Ratifying Convention. Richmond Theatre, Richmond, VA. 4 June 1788.

George Mason, the well known Antifederalist, worked hard to prevent the Constitution
from being ratified in Virginia. He felt that there were too many problems with the
Constitution and that he could not agree with it. Mason eventually helped get the Bill of
Rights formed with the Constitution. Like many other attendees, he gave a speech
at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He argued over many problems with the
Constitution throughout the convention. Mason states that there are too many issues with
the proposed Constitution and that he could not sign it at that time. His speech mainly
discusses the problems with the number of people in the House of Representatives.

Secondary Sources: 10

Barbash, Fred. The Founding: a Dramatic Account of the Writing of the Constitution. New York,
N.Y.: Linden/Simon and Schuster, 1987. Print.

The story of how the Constitution was created. The nation was in need of a solid
government, and so delegates from the states came together in order to create the
legendary document. Though the Articles of Confederation were in place, there were too
many problems with them, so a new form of government needed to be created. Fred
Barbash, spending a large portion of his career as a writer and editor of the
Washington Post, tells this amazing story of the Constitutional Convention. This novel
shows the reader the needs of the country at the time and how the Constitution, a truly
revolutionary document, was created to fulfill those needs.

Bowen, Catherine Drinker. Miracle at Philadelphia: the Story of the Constitutional Convention,
May to September, 1787. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986. Print.

The story of the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia, PA. Catherine Drinker
Bowen was the author of several novels, many of which won awards or were critically
acclaimed. This book documents the the Constitutional Convention, the place where the
Constitution was discussed and formed. It shows the struggle of getting the reluctant
attendees to create a completely new document that would be the Constitution for
America. By reading this novel, one can begin to understand the different discussions
and arguments that the delegates had over the Constitution and also its ratification.
Constitution of the United States - "Federalists Versus Anti-federalists" Law Library January
2010

It was believed by the Federalists in America that the Union did not have a strong, central
government, and that it needed to be improved. This group mainly consisted wealthier,
more high-class American individuals, while their rivals were generally in the lower
classes. The Anti-federalists were against these improvements the federalists put in the
constitution, specifically there not being enough individual rights, and the challenge of
making a never before tested government. The Federalists argued back saying that there
was not problems in the constitution, but they were not believed. There was a very clear
division amongst the two classes, but neither wanted the spitting of the country. So the
Union would not fall apart, a compromise was made in the Bill of Rights.

Holton, Woody. "An "Excess of Democracy"-Or a Shortage? The Federalists' Earliest

Adversaries." Journal of the Early Republic 3(2005):339. eLibrary. Web. 24 Apr. 2010.

Woody Holton is an associate professor at the University of Richmond. In his journal

articles, he discusses the Federalists and the Antifederalists struggle on opposite sides of
the conflict over the ratification of the Constitution. Antifederalists’ fears about the
proposed constitution, such as the government becoming too powerful, are shown. The
Federalists’ reasons to ratify the document are also described. The article goes in depth
about the battle between the two opposing groups that was created by the issue of
ratification. The two groups were constantly arguing over what they thought was best for
their new nation. This journal will help us understand the points of conflict between the
Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

Johnson, Joel A. "Disposed to Seek Their True Interests: Representation and Responsibility in
Anti-Federalist Thought" Scholarly Journal 10-1-2004

The Anti Federalists had been described as mainly being comprised of lower level
citizens who were generally much less educated than their opposing federalists.
Although this was true, they still had sufficient numbers of people, and enough influence
to be heard. Their beliefs were that the Constitution did not help them very much, so they
didn't want it to be ratified. Some scholars believe that they were just "foot-draggers"
who wanted their own old way, but were defeated by the modern thinking federalists.
Unfortunately for them, the revolution thinking of the founding fathers prevailed, and
although the Anti-Federalists got some reforming of it, the Constitution was ratified. The
feelings of several scholars towards the Anti-Federalists are written in this journal.
Kaminski John P. Leffler, Richard. Federalists and Anti-Federalists: The Debate Over the
Ratification of the Constitution Constitutional Heritage Series 1989

For a quarter of a century the debate over the best way to run this new nation in America
went on. This book describes the climax of this era, when American's were arguing at the
idea of a constitution. It has six of the most important issue in the debate, including the
President, the Senate, and the Bill of Rights. All of these arguments are discussed by
some of the most prominent politicians of the eightieth century in documents written by
them. Both Federalist and Anti-Federalist views are represented in it. These are all-
important subjects with regard to the new government being formed, and are also the
ones that were at the center of these politicians’ debates.

Labunski, Richard E. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford: Oxford UP,
2006. Print.

The story of the conflict over the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The book gives the reader an understanding of the different political struggles and the
heated debates that were occurring in America at that time. James Madison's crucial role
in founding the new nation is explored throughout the novel. The roles of the other
delegates such as George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, and Edmund Randolph are
described as well. Richard Labunski, the author, is a professor at the University of
Kentucky and also taught at the University of Washington and Penn State. This story will
give us a broad sense of what the Constitutional Convention was like, and also what
happened after the convention.

Mount, Steve. "Constitutional Topic: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists" 1-15-2010

The Federalists and Anti-federalists had supporters on both sides, and there were many
who felt strong enough to right powerful letters to newspapers. A major Anti-federalist
enthusiast was the Deliberator. His letters brought up many things other federalists
believed true, that he argued were not. Many of his arguments were the same as those
most other Anti-federalists believed in. The specific arguments of the people in America
at the time are perfectly shown through this one man's writing. This source provides
many quotes of what he was fighting for, and how most of what he said turned to be true
in the future.
Patrick, John. "The Birth of the Bill of Rights" The Bill of Rights: A History in Documents
12-01-2003

Before The Constitution was drafted, many of the colonies in America wanted their own
constitutions or Declarations. A major helper in making these was John Adams, because
he knew what ideas would work best in a government. Virginia made one based off his
ideas, and when the Untied States constitution was written, many of those ideas went into
it, or into the bill or rights. Adams talked about a better government system where the
people could be free, and there were many checks and balances so no one person could
declare something themselves. Unfortunately, the Anti-federalists decided that this new
government lacked individual rights that were needed in a new country. Once The
Constitution was drafted and proposed, there were many other flaws that were brought up
by the people.

"United States government." Compton's by Britannica, v 6.0. 27 Jan. 2009. eLibrary. Web. 09
May. 2010

Under the individual colonies self-ruling, they wanted to be ruled by themselves and have
their own authority. The United States Constitution was the document that formed one
nation with a central government that could be ruled fairly. Contrary to most other
constitutions, the US's had a set of purposed they wanted to achieve and withhold while
governing the nation. Most others only wanted to set up a government. The purposes it
had were very specific to the injustices, and the general wants the colonists had in the
past. For the first time in the history of America, a full system was being set, and was
going to be withheld by the Country by itself. With this constitution, the colonies were
finally one stable, government run country. This article provides a full description of the
constitution's goals it set out to achieve, as well as a general overview of the whole
document itself.