The Anti-Federalist Papers: The Principles Of Democracy

These different views on government made many people think hard on what type of government they wanted. In the end, the Federalist’s point of view won. Today, this type of government still exists. It made one of the

“You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.”

I was surprised that I actually agreed with what the Anti-federalist had to say. I found it to be more dense and harder then the federalist number ten. Once I found a good source and was able to understand what the points they are trying to make were, I found that I liked the views they stand for. I liked the idea of more representatives instead of just one for the whole nation. If each state had their own representative they would be able to better represent the interests of those people. Also they wouldn’t have to do so much damage control if each state was taking care of by their own specific representative. If each state had control over whom and what they taxed, they could better control the economy of that state. The people would feel

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

The Federalist Papers were 85 essays that were published in 1787 and 1788. They were anonymous and always signed by “Publius.” Publius was actually 3 men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. They wrote the papers to convince the people of New York to vote to ratify the Constitution. These essays were published in newspapers throughout the state of New York. Federalist 10 was written by James Madison and was titled The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued). This essay was a continuation of Federalist 9. Federalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton thought that if the states continued to maintain complete control, each state would become its own nation, which would leave the U.S. bankrupt. They believe that a strong central government would have the ability to stop this from occurring. Factions were James Madison’s worst fear. Madison believed that factions were what were going to keep states divided and more likely to turn to individual nations. James Madison’s opinions are correct.

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

I think authors of the anti-Federalists essays withheld their identities because they were afraid of the backlash they would receive from individuals. Majority of the nation favored an increase in the national government and to be on the opposite spectrum they wanted to speak anonymously. Authors of the Federalist Papers included their names with their essays because they were speaking out for something that was popular at the time. People tend to want to be anonymous when they hold opposite ideas from others because they are fearful of

can also be impeached, put on trial, and if found guilty of crime or misdemeanor, he/she is prosecuted and punished (Garzik, 2004). However, the King of Great Britain cannot be impeached or tried. Unless a crisis involving national revolution occurs, then he becomes amenable. According to the arguments provided by Lee, there are flaws in the manner in which a president should be replaced in the event that he leaves office (The Federalist Papers Project, 2015). The idea of the president holding office for four years does not take into account such issues as death, resignation, and inability. In this case, Lee poses the question of who should take over as acting president (The Federalist Papers Project, 2015). When it comes to passing bills, the president of the U.S. has the authority to return bills even after it passes the two branches of the legislature (Garzik, 2004). The president is thus said to have a qualified negative. Conversely, the British sovereign has absolute negative regarding acts of the two

The Anti-Federalist put up a long and hard fight, however, they were not as organized as the Federalists. While the Anti- Federalist had great concerns about the Constitution and National government, the Federalist had good responses to combat these concerns. The Federalist were and for the Constitution and feel the Article of Confederation were not worth ratifying, these should be scrapped altogether. They felt that the Articles limited the power of congress, because congress had to request cooperation from the states. Unlike the Anti-Federalist, the Federalist organized quickly, had ratifying conventions, and wrote the Federalist papers to rebut the Anti- Federalist arguments.

When the United States declared itself a sovereign nation, the Articles of Confederation were drafted to serve as the nations first Constitution.Under these Articles, the states held most of the power; but due to an almost absent centralized government, colonists were ill-equipped to deal with such practices as regulating trade both between states and internationally, levying taxes, solving inter-state disputes, negotiating with foreign nations, and most importantly enforcing laws under the current notion of "Congress". Realizing that there were several deficiencies in the current system of self-government, the states appointed delegates to ratify the situation and come up with a way to attain the aforementioned practices they needed to

(Document 2) This quote illustrates that there was no way to prevent the branches (executive, judicial, legislative) from abusing their powers. The anti-federalists feared what this strong central government would become. Reasonably, if the constitution was ratified, the federalists would have endless control. The anti federalists feared the government would become a monarchy. Perhaps the biggest argument was mentioned in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, “it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth….powers not expressly delegated by the constitution… are reserved to several states.” (Document 6) This quote states that the powers that were not given to the original constitution would now be given to the states. Basically, if there was any right or law not originally in the constitution the states were given the right to adjust and look after it.

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these

In America today there are many political parties which include the Democrats and the Republicans. The beginning of political parties started in 1787 with the federalist, then later on the anti-federalist in 1796. Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the federalist party. Thomas Jefferson was the leader of the anti-federalist; who called themselves the Democratic-Republicans. Our first president, George Washington warned us about having parties and the danger of them. However, "not until Congress debated the ratification and implementation of Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain did two political parties clearly emerge"; the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Today the most influential parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. These parties win all of the presidential elections as of today. Political parties formed because the United States was beginning to grow and expand. Many people had different opinions and so political parties were formed. People were concerned about the how the new government was going to be organized.

State rights are what the Anti-federalists wanted the most, since they believed that each state would be able to govern themselves as they see fit. They saw the federal government as something unnecessary, and that it would just reduce the amount of rights that each of the states could have. It took the Bill of Rights' tenth amendment, unlisted rights are subject to be defined by the states, to get most anti-federalists to come to an agreement on the Constitution.

The Federalists main argument was a large republic would be vulnerable to aggression from foreign powers, internal unrest to the point of civil war absent a Federal Government. Federalists also believed they had an obligation to create a republican government versus a democratic government to protect the Federal government against such situation, because a republican governments elect representatives to make government decisions, republican governments are better equipped to make decision based on national interest, not state or local interest; while a democratic government would be more inclined to base decision on local interests because all citizens in a democratic government have a direct role in government decision making process.