Bill of Rights to Protect from Tyranny

After the Constitution was written, the new born nation was immediately split into two political sides, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification. Federalists, southern planters or people that tended to hold interest in trade, advocated a strong executive. On the other hand, anti-federalists, back country people or people involved in business but not in the mercantile economy, opposed the ratification of the constitution. The two sides, after much debate, were able to come to a compromise after the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution. When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste. Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists, a name referring to a balance of power between the states and the national government. They argued for a federal system as in the Constitution. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous that it looked because the separation of powers protected people from tyrannical abuse. The Federalists compile a group of essays, known as The Federalist Papers. In No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and they system of checks an balances would protect Americans from the tyranny of centralized authority. He wrote that opposite motives among government office holders were good, and was one of the advantages of a big government with different demographics. In No. 10, he said that there was no need to fear factions, for not enough power