Question

I am having trouble analyzing the context of this paragraph. Would you say a federalist wrote this or an anti-federalist?
Thanks

Source: "Brutus," New York Journal, January 10, 1788

The power to raise armies, is indefinite and unlimited, and authorises the raising forces, as well in peace as in war. Whether the clause which impowers the Congress to pass all laws which are proper and necessary, to carry this into execution, will not authorise them to impress men for the army, is a question well worthy consideration? If the general legislature deem it for the general welfare to raise a body of troops, and they cannot be procured by voluntary enlistments, it seems evident, that it will be proper and necessary to effect it, that men be impressed from the militia to make up the deficiency.

Answer 1

My guess would be an Anti Federalist because it seems as if he is criticizing the fact the Constitution would have a weak militia system?

Answer 2

Neva mindd, hit the jackpot by a simple google search! It is an Anti Fed that wrote this for anyone looking for this in the future!

Answer 3

It seems the author is warning that the Congress could impress or draft people, even in peacetime, to serve in a national army. Federalists were in favor of a strong national government, as defined in the Federal constitution. Anti-Federalists were in favor of strong states with a weak central government. So, what do you think? I agree it's Anti-Federalist, but not because the new government would be too weak or have a weak militia system.

Answer 4

Well, good! Google searches are good. I'm glad you decided to read instead of look for the answers to be given to you, as many do.

Answer 5

Thank you, Reed!!!!

Answer 6

Any time, Dallas. :)