Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist Paper #15 called The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union was a primary document that showed the problems with the Articles of Confederation and how it was detrimental to the United States. He is warning the American people that their country could begin to crumble if some issues weren 't addressed. Most of what Hamilton writes about was already popular among the Americans, and he acknowledges this when he writes about how his piece may be "tedious or irksome." Under the Articles, the government did not have enough authority over the states to properly govern. The national government could merely recommend laws, but the states had the final say. The states could advance their own …show more content…
Hamilton calls this a "national humiliation. "He also mentions how weak the military was, as how unprepared the Americans would be if they were attacked. Hamilton writes," Are we in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government." He notes how the Spanish were able to dominate trade in the Mississippi due to the US 's weak military capabilities. The Mississippi River divided the Spanish and the Americans, but the Spanish had the advantage due to the American 's weak military. He warns that if no change is made, there will be anarchy. Hamilton states,"...there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy." Hamilton urges that a new Constitution must be adopted in order to avoid any missteps in the formation of the United States of …show more content…
A primary document, it was a message for the Federalists and to the American public in general. Although they did not fully support the Articles of Confederation, they did not want a new Constitution to be written. These people were concerned about how little freedom they would have if the federal government got more power. Because of this, they are against the beliefs of the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists are also concerned about how the national government could abuse its power if given a higher authoritative role in the revised Constitution. In order to show the concern, the authors write, “the legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; there is no limitation to this power..." The Anti-Federalists were afraid that allowing the national government to have so much power would be like living under Britain 's authority all over again. This would render the American Revolution pointless, they believed. They supported the state governments in having authority to tax, govern, and to have independence from the central government in doing so. They believe that if the central government starts taxing the people, the state governments would not be able to raise money
Both groups came to agreement and agreed that there needed to be a stronger authority requiring an independent salary to function. They both also agreed that they needed to raise safeguards against the tyranny. The anti-Federalists would not agree to the new Constitution without the “Bill of Rights.” The Federalists ended up including the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of people. It reassured the anti-Federalists the government could not abuse their power by taking it out on the people. The Federalists included the Bill of Rights to get the anti-Federalists votes and support in the Constitution to actually get it
In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.
The Federalist paper # 68 was written with the intent of explaining the process by which we elect the President of the United States, also the views of the people in regards to the election of the President, as well as the House of Representative’s responsibility in electing the President.
The states attempted to limit the power of the national government because they feared that it would become a monarchy. In an effort to limit the power of the national government, Congress created one without enough power to govern effectively, which led to serious national and international problems. One of the main weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation was its incapability to regulate trade and levy taxes. The states controlled all of their “cash flows.” Sometimes, the states were in debt because of tariff wars that they would engage in with one another.
Throughout the American Revolution, the colonists were completely resentful towards their British 'king'. They yearned for their own government, and to finally set themselves apart from George III's rule and his legislation. When the Articles of Confederation were mandated, the expectation was to provide the colonies with a stable government. The Articles were then replaced by the Constitution, which had corresponding values. Essentially the document was written to salvage and improve the new government. The Constitution did many positive things for the nation, and was the perfect remedy for the failures of of the Articles. However, it is manifest that the authors of the document were not as honorable as they may have been assumed to be. How they drafted the document and the bias they have put into it is still greatly effects us. The Constitution is a counter-revolution because it contradicts the fails of the Articles, and is evident that some authors had more self-beneficial and narrow mindsets.
The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed in an all too dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.
... purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon molder into dust…” wrote George Washington in 1783 (Humphrey 2003, 110). It was apparent to the country’s leaders that the Articles of Confederation had failed. The central government was far too weak and did not have enough power over the states to control even minor things. Without a source of revenue, a system of trade, or any kind of organization of the states, the country was failing. The Articles of Confederation lasted just over eight years, finally being replaced on March 4, 1789 (Henretta et al. 2010). Delegates had to come to a compromise between a weak and disorganized central government, and a strong one with limited but essential power. This led to the creation of the United States Constitution, which unlike the Articles of Confederation, has stood the test of time due to its strong central government.
The Articles of Confederation were incapable of providing the United States with an effective form of government. The Articles of Confederation presided weakly over the government as it allowed little or no power to tax, control trade, and branches of government were missing. In addition to this, the thirteen states acted as separate nations and the national government had little control over them.
Federalist Papers No. 78 was an essay written by Alexander Hamilton. Like all of the Federalist Papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius. Federalist No. 78 examines primarily the term of office for judges but in making the case for lifetime appointments it details the responsibilities of the federal courts. In fact, the department of justice as one of the weakest in the separation of the three powers, not with the other two analogies. It has no power, and no property rights and wealth of the society, cannot take any active action. The Justice Department is absolutely cannot be successfully against the other two departments. Therefore should be the requirement is that it can to protect themselves against violations of the other two aspects. It concentrates on the judge and court to defend the
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.
The broadway hit play Hamilton, written by Lin Manuel Miranda, is viewed as an educational play about Alexander Hamilton, one of the United States’ founding fathers and the first Secretary of the Treasury. The play captures the spirit of Alexander Hamilton’s ambition, eloquence, and mistakes in a revolutionary format-as revolutionary as Hamilton himself! Combining rap, musical theater, and history, Hamilton is an enthralling and entertaining play that is mostly accurate to the real Alexander Hamilton. The details of Hamilton’s life and relationships that were misrepresented in the play to achieve the theatrical flair.