Stay updated with breaking news from Ratification Debates. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
To a vast majority of the founding generation, standing armies were extremely dangerous, “the bane of liberty.” The best way to prevent them? Render them unnecessary.
During the ratification debates, Federalists repeatedly warned that adding a bill of rights would be unnecessary - and even dangerous. Learn what they had to say - where they made good points - and missed the mark too.
You see, the "Federalists" we've come to know and love or despise were in reality nationalists who sought to centralize power in the general government by hook or crook.
A *permanent* or *baneful* aristocracy - despite federalist assurances to the contrary - with senators mostly serving for life - that's what many anti-federalists warned we'd get with the structure of the federal Senate.
In a series of speeches during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry laid out much of the anti-federalist case against ratification without amendments. The foundation underlying all his arguments was a consistent warning against consolidation - or centralized power - and trusting people with that power.