In the federalist paper NO. 5 the author the author John Jay makes claims that the states should have a strong Federal government and have the state's answer to the government. In response Scotland and England - a Case in Point was written by “An Observer”, in which they refute Jay’s points written in his paper. The federalist paper in question has the superior argument,by driving his points home, using prior knowledge to compare it to similar scenarios, relaying everything to the audience in concise points, and by actually by having best statements from an argumentative perspective. The way in which John Jay’s words have more impactful statements is a deliberate choice by the author makes to ingrain the statements into the audience's minds.…
It didn't make sense for the National Government to have more power leaving the states weak. They also believed that the power among the three branches was not equally divided. The Anti-Federalist were more for the people, more of which were farmers and small landowners. More and more the Anti-Federalist believed that the Federalist were more interested in a aristocratic society which would be at the expense of the commoners of the colonies. Now the way the Federalist won over the ratification of the Constitution was that James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton wrote The Federalist Papers which helped convinced some people to ratify the Constitution.…
The Federalist Papers were papers written in 1787 by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. There were eighty-five papers in total. However we will just be covering numbers ten, fifty-one, forty-seven, and thirty-nine. These cover many of the major problems that would be facing a new government. These papers were very important to our constitution, and our founding.…
When the founding fathers were writing the constitution, there was much debate as to how strong they would allow the central government to become. For the Anti-Federalists in particular, it was important that the Constitution ensured the oppression the Americans had experienced under British rule could not be repeated. The purpose of Madison writing Federalist No. 51 was to convince Anti-Federalists, particularly those concentrated in New York, that the constitution would prevent the government from becoming too strong. If it were not ensured that the three branches of government would be independent of one another, and that a checks and balances system would be in place, it would have been more difficult for the constitution to have been ratified.…
When James Madison outlines the dangers of faction in Federalist No. 10, he defines faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united...by some common...interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens.” 1 This wording is critical for examining both the goals and pivotal ideas of the federalist movement. At first glance, this definition seems to reflect the very real fear of mob uprising. Certainly, it’s tone insinuates an image of mob citizenry diametrically opposed to a smaller elite. However, although this image may have captured this political component of the United States in November 1787, a closer inspection yields a less controversial interpretation.…
In 1787, the New America had won her independence from England, yet a vacuum had been created which forced the need to form a new governmental system. This system would allow the people to rule themselves as well as protect their new nation from others. In response, two ideas of government were formed among the people. One group called themselves the Federalist who saw a need for a strong national government and the other group was called the Anti-Federalist who preferred for each state to rule and govern itself. As Brown and Shi state, a “fierce political debate that ensued, advocates of the new Constitution assumed the name Federalists.…
Anti-Federalists feared a powerful government would oppress the people. They argued that the new constitution was too much like the powerful British Monarchy. Anti-federalist thought the power should remain with the states and local governments.…
Written anonymously by James Madison (4th President of the US) and published in newspapers to create public support for the US Constitution, Federalist 10 took on the problem of factions and how best to limit conflict within the nation. Factions, as defined by Madison, were groups of people who came together to pursue their interests in opposition to the needs or interests of others. Madison suggested that there were two main methods for the prevention of factional conflict. First, Americans would elect the best citizens among them who would resist the allure of factions with their natural virtue. Second, a large nation would ensure that truly harmful factions never coalesced.…
Some of America’s finest minds got together for the Philadelphia convention to figure out which form of government would be best. The Federalists were formed by Alexander Hamilton and its other well-known members were Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, George Washington, and James Madison. Federalists desired a secure central government and feeble state governments, preferred the Constitution to aid the amount owed and stress of the American Revolution, were against the Bill of Rights, and were supported in large urban areas. Meanwhile, the Anti-federalists were composed by Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Richard Lee, George Mason, and Mercy Warren. Anti-federalists insisted that power in the states not in the central government, picked the Articles…
The anti-Federalists included Thomas Jefferson, didn’t have as much influence due to the fact they were poor and overshadowed by the dominance of the Federalists. Federalists were also educated in many fields that excelled them. For example, John Adams was a renowned lawyer who was able to prove the innocence of the British soldiers who fired in the Boston Massacre. Thus they were able to use their words to compel others to follow in the party’s ideas. Anti-Federalists were for the most part, not as properly educated weren’t able to spread their ideas as easily.…
The Federalists are who instated the foundation for what our country is. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had an opinions on how the nation should exist. However, the ideals of each group conflicted on multiple levels. Originally, the first draft for a constitution was established by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 (Kramnick, pg155). This was a document to draft laws for the newly independent states.…
The Anti-Federalists felt that states were free agents that should manage their own revenue and spend their money as they saw fit, while the Federalists felt that many individual and different fiscal and monetary policies led to economic…
The Anti-Federalists had the better argument overall because they had clear instances showing how a strong central government could become corrupt and lose interest in its citizens. They wanted the power to stay in the states because it would allow more control over what was happening within the nation and it would give citizens more protected rights. In the end, after several debates between the groups, they agreed on creating the Bill of Rights, which gave the citizens protected rights. In addition, they agreed on forming one central government that was made up of three branches, all with restricted powers because of the checks and balances between them.…
Two of the major leaders of this group were Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who was overseas during this time. The Anti-Federalists thought that under the Articles people had the rights that they rightfully deserved. Under the Articles, the poor people benefitted greatly. During the process of trying to get the new Constitution ratified the Anti-Federalists felt that under this new government the rich had all of the power instead of the people (Doc 5). Under the Articles the states had the power to make laws and do whatever they pleased, and to some of the states the idea of changing to a government that the central government had all the power was absolutely absurd.…
Because the government of Great Britain was so oppressive and tyrannical, I know that I wouldn’t have wanted anything that resembled that for the new United States of America. With a strong central government, Anti-Federalists believed that the government that the Federalists believed in would resemble that government of Great Britain. Although this didn’t prove to be true, I think that back then, I would have been too blinded by my desire to not have a government which resembled England’s than to think about the possible success that the new government could have. Another reason that I think I would have been an Anti-Federalist is because I would have believed in the importance of the Constitution having a bill of rights.…