¶ … Anti-Federalist Papers
The historic Anti-Federalist Papers were essays composed against the 1787 U.S. Constitution's ratification. They represented diverse opposition-related aspects, and focused on various criticisms of the newly formulated constitution. The articles appeared under a fictitious name "Brutus." The general belief is that Brutus was actually Robert Yates; others claim the author of those articles was Melancton Smith or Thomas Tredwell. All the articles were directed at New York's inhabitants.
Summary/Analysis of the Anti-Federalist Papers (Brutus No.2 and Brutus No. 5)
Anti-federalist articles published under the penname of 'Brutus' in New York Journal editions voice a number of concerns about, and protests against, the fresh Constitution. While numerous Constitutional adversaries composed and published Anti-Federalist essays, those composed by 'Brutus' are considered the most effective in resisting the Constitution. The second article under the false name studies individual rights connected with the social compact model put forward by Locke, in addition to objecting to the declaration that the Constitution lacks one of the Bills of rights. Meanwhile, Brutus No. 5 explores the 1st Article, 8th Section clause which highlights control over revenue. In this paper, the most salient and stimulating arguments put forward by Brutus in his second and fifth article will be examined on the basis of depth and strength. The paper will also address how far the articles are representative of the objections several Anti -- Federalists raised.
The second article by Brutus provides a
Brutus explains that mankind leaves the natural state by instituting a government by means of a social compact, for better securing its life, material possessions, and freedoms. Repeating the widespread skepticism in the American society, with regard to governmental power, Brutus further indicates that a government is composed of humans sharing common characteristics, including the possible desires of greed and ambition. In a natural state, all people pursue their unique interests. The pursuit was commonly marked by the belongings or delights of one being sacrificed to serve another's ends and opinions. Hence, the weaker individuals were preyed upon by the strong and the naive were put through impositions from more manipulative and cunning individuals (Kurland & Lerner). Elected representatives, too, may pursue and abuse their authority to serve their personal interests, at the expense of the common good. This, contended Brutus, reinforces the need for a bill of rights within…
