More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalist vs anti federalist issues
The dispute between the federalist and the anti-federalist
Evolution of federalism throughout American history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Thomas Pangle Lecture Synopsis
Thomas Pangle, in “The Great Debate: The Federalist Response to the Anti-Federalist Challenge,” examined the relationship between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to explain the Federalist Papers defense of the U.S. Constitution. He described these papers as a type of political theory that explains what our Constitution was framed in order to achieve. Pangle started the lecture by explaining and analyzing the Anti-Federalists opposition to replacing the Articles of Confederation (AOC). He claimed that the Anti-Federalists thought the AOC was sufficient and that the new constitution would be too far from the republican principles that had been long-standing tradition. The Anti-Federalists didn’t want a new, bold constitution, but instead wanted to keep the AOC because it allowed local representatives to control government. According to Pangle, the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep representatives close to their citizens, have short-term limits, and stick with homogeneity to keep people together. Ultimately, the Anti-Federalists would have to face the budding realities of the growing nation. Pangle argued that the Federalists approach to a new Constitution was largely impacted by their knowledge of the budding realities. They knew that the nation
…show more content…
Madison believed that having diverse representatives would lead to a federal government that would be better than any state government that was homogeneous. He went a step further by saying that representatives should be unlike the populous, meaning that the elected should be wiser, better, and not like the voters. Anti-Federalists predicted the populist Americans wouldn’t put up with these bold Federalist ideas. The Anti-Federalists would make their mark on the Constitution, but ultimately the Constitution would be closer to the Federalists’ bold
he enduring debate is a book that was written by John J. Coleman. It outlines the issues and the existing readings in the history of American politics. The politics of America have been defined by a number of great articles from great philosophers. Some of the writers who wrote about the constitution in America include former presidents such as James Madison. Chapter 3 of the book talks about federalism. Federalism is a form of government that advocates for two or more units to contribute equally to the control of one geographical region. Federal government advocates for sharing of power between the central government and the other units of governance. The discussion below is the summary of the readings on federalism.
Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists, a name referring to a balance of power between the states and the national government. They argued for a federal system as in the Constitution. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous that it looked because the separation of powers protected people from tyrannical abuse. The Federalists compile a group of essays, known as The Federalist Papers. In No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and they system of checks an balances would protect Americans from the tyranny of centralized authority. He wrote that opposite motives among government office holders were good, and was one of the advantages of a big government with different demographics. In No. 10, he said that there was no need to fear factions, for not enough power would be given to the faction forming people; thus, they wouldn't become tyrannical. Hamilton, in No. 84, defended the Constitution with the case that the Constitution can be amended by representatives, who are there to represent the citizens' interests.
From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together.
In The Federalist Papers by James Madison, Madison discuses various aspects of government and how the government must be organized in order to better represent the people. In The Federalist, No. 10 Madison discusses the nature of political factions and parties and how they can affect the government and its practices. The Federalist, No. 51 discusses instead how the government being in branches helps maintain liberties and better protect the American people. The topics mentioned in The Federalist Papers continue to explain and structure our government today.
Madison begins perhaps the most famous of the Federalist papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interests, and infringe upon the rights of others.
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.
In Federalist No.10, James Madison discusses his theories about faction. In doing this, he persuades the new Constitution and how it should be enacted. He believed factions were the number one cause of the failure of the Articles of Confederation.
In Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison sees Factions as being inevitable. Humans hold differing opinions and are all living under different circumstances, and are likely to group together with those most like themselves. Some groups of people will attempt to work together to benefit themselves even if it goes against public interests and even if it infringes upon the rights of others. In the Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison feared that Factions could be detrimental to the common good and in order to minimize the effects and control the effects of Factions, the best form of government would be a large republic. According to Madison, to minimize the negative consequences of Factions, they must either be controlled or the causes of Factions must be removed. Since he describes the causes of Factions being the different interests and living conditions between individuals, it can be argued that this solution is not very feasible. It would be impossible to make sure every single person makes the same amount of money, has the same goals, and even goes through similar life experiences. The greatest source of Factions, the deepest and biggest cause of Factions, according to Madison, is the unequal distribution of property. The acquisition of property or lack of property creates class divisions the foster differing interests. Since it is not possible to
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
In conclusion, Madison thinks the human nature is ambitious, and the fixed outcome of human ambitions is people create factions to promote their own interests. In the case of preventing corrupt or mischief by factions, he believes majority and pure democracy is not a solution. The method he advocated is a large republic with checking system. He converts human ambition to provide internal checks and balances in government. His point of view stimulated the approval of the proposal of the United States Constitution.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stresses that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Madison philosophized that a large republic, composed of numerous factions capable of competing with each other and the majority must exist in order to avoid tyranny of majority rule.# When Federalist No. 10 was published, the concept of pluralism was not widely used. However, the political theory that is the foundation for United States government was the influential force behind pluralism and its doctrines.
In James Madison’s paper federalist No, 10, James Madison’s interpreted that a factions of people gathering is to protect and being able to give their interest and political opinions to the economic. Madison thought that there could be two ways to be able to control a faction which is; to be able to control the effects and remove its causes. There were two ways to be able to eliminate the causes of the faction and which is getting rid of the liberty or give the same opinions, interest, and passion to citizens. Therefore, the governments created by the constitution were able to take care of the damage that was caused by such factions. Madison was also stating the any men elected to the office, shall be wise and a good men to the best of America. He also thought that the opposite might happen. Men who are prejudice or evil and wins elections could destroy and betray people’s passions and interests.
Federalist Papers are arguably some of the most important documents in constitutional history. But it’s easy to forget that these essays were written under extreme deadlines and dire circumstances. The Federalist Papers as we know them today were penned only in order to convince the citizens of New York to vote for a then unpopular Constitution. In his article Epstein attempts to critique the profound nature of the essays and the vision which allowed them to transcend from their political origins. In essence: what makes the Federalist Papers so special?