Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Disputes of the federalist and anti federalist papers
American revolution political
American revolution political
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States of America had a weak central government after it gained its independence, and was on the verge of a depression. Debts which it had incurred from the American Revolutionary War sought to bring down the Union they fought so hard to establish. The Articles of Confederation had kept the federal government from enforcing policies and laws which could bring them out of this debt crisis. The weakness of the central government had prompted the Federalists to write what are known as ‘The Federalist Papers’, which detailed how the constitution must be reformed in order to save the Union. These papers eventually formed the basis of the new constitution, but they could not account for the various compromises and the rapidly changing …show more content…
The compromise outlined that “…three-fifths of all other persons” would get the same representation in House of Representatives as white people. These “other persons” were slaves, and the representation given to the slaves was in essence transferred to the white men living in the South. This gave them a higher degree of representation than their equivalent living in the North, because slaves were still considered property instead of people, and thus they had no rights. What happened afterwards was that the south became over represented in the Union, and could even have enough support to elect slave holding presidents, and public officials. This fostered a divide between the North and the South, which was turned into an ‘us vs them’ mentality, which can sometimes even be felt …show more content…
There was a delicate balance of eleven free and eleven slave states in the Union, and the admission of a new state would serve to destroy the balance. However, a Kentuckian by the name of Henry Clay brought about the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which stated that Missouri would become a slave state, and that Maine would be admitted as a free state. It also outlined that any land south of the 36°30′ parallel, also known as the ‘Mason Dixon Line’, would be admitted to the union as a slave state. This compromise was criticized by southerners because they didn’t believe that Congress had the power to make laws about slavery, and it was also criticized by northerners who wanted to see the expansion of slavery ended. Though it faced popular disapproval, the compromise managed to hold the union together for several decades after it was
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
The Federalist papers were for the constitution being ratified. They were written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. They consisted of 85 articles and essays. Most of them were published between 1787 and 1788 although; the author’s names were kept a secret until 1818. Hamilton decided to sign the papers “Publius” to keep his name anonymous. Hamilton was the first to publish an essay and soon picked Madison and Jay to assist him. To their surprise, the Federalist papers influenced many of the New York people to vote for having the constitution ratified. On the contrary, the Anti-Federalist papers did not agree entirely with the new Constitution. They were written by many different authors. Although, some of the more popular Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Sam Adams, etc. They were also 85 Anti-Federalist papers. Much like the federalist papers, they Anti-Federalists adopted the name “Brutus”.
There are two mind paths to choose when considering the statement that the compromises of the 1800s were not really compromises, but sectional sellouts by the North, that continually gave in to the South's wishes. The first is that the compromises really were compromises, and the second is that the compromises were modes of the North selling out. Really, there is only one correct path between these two, and that is that the North sold out during these compromises and gave the South what it wanted for minimal returns. The three main compromises of the 19th century, the compromises of 1820 (Missouri) and 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 each were ways for the south to gain more power so that eventually, it could secede. First, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 established the slavery line that allowed slavery below it and forbid slavery above it.
One agreement the Constitution consisted of was the three-fifths Compromise. Foner states that the Constitution did not allow the national government to meddle with slavery in the states. This meant that three out of every five slaves could be counted as part of the state 's population. The powerpoint mentions that this raised their representation in the House of Representatives. The congress could not mess with the slave trade until
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
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.
Since the beginning of their new nation, the United States had many differences between the Northern and Southern states. During the Constitutional Convention they disagreed on how to determine their representation in the house based on population; the Southerners wanted to count their slaves and the Northerners did not, which lead to the three-fifths compromise. Later in the Convention there were concessions given to the South, which left the Northerners feeling uneasy, such as: a guarantee that the slave trade would not be interfered with by Congress until 1808 and slave owners were given the right to recover refugee slaves from anywhere in the United States. While many Northern delegates were disappointed with the rights given to the South, they felt it was necessary for the good of the Nation. This was necessary to form a strong central government and union between the states.
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
One item in the Compromise of 1850 was the provision for a stronger Fugitive Slave Law. This new law made it a federal crime to not return a runaway slave to the south. The law also established that any suspected runaway slave was to be tried by a single judge, not by a jury. Also, these judges were compensated by a system that provided them with more money for deciding that the slave was guilty than innocent. This law obviously encouraged people not to harbor runaway slaves, and when they were caught, it provided the judge an incentive to have them returned to the south.
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.
Correspondly, the senate passed the Missouri Compromise in February 1820, which allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and Maine to enter as a free state, making the free and slave states balanced once again. Another amendment was passed to prohibit slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the southern border of Missouri. This event envisioned a possible threat to the relationship between the North and South. Moreover, the United States began to believe in a manifest destiny, a god-given right to expand its territory until it had absorbed all of North America, including Canada and Mexico.... ...
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
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.
Around the late 1780s, America realized that the government it was using did not work. The States were divided, not together since the Articles of Confederation only loosely bound them together. Each State had different foreign treaties, different laws, even different money. The Constitution was proposed, which would transform the states into a united nation with a single, republican government. Two parties arose who disagreed over whether it should be ratified or not; the federalists and the anti-federalists. The federalists were in favor of unifying the states into one government. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, wanted to fix the Articles of Confederation instead of throwing them out and creating a new government. The two sides had