Anti-Federalist Argument Analysis

Within the Federalist Papers Publius claims that for the United States to work it needs an extended republic given by the Constitution and that any other form of government will not work. Those who oppose the new Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, claim that the new constitution will erode liberty and destroy the government. The Anti-Federalists present several arguments against the Constitution, but Publius quickly and easily shoots them down to show the necessity of an extended republic and how other options for fixing the government simply will not do. One argument against the Constitution, given by the Federalist Farmer argues that, “wealth, office, and the benefits of government would collect in the centre: and the extreme states and their principal towns would become much less important” (CP 44). Agrippa makes a similar argument …show more content…
These are indeed valid concerns, in that if a representative loses concern for his electors then the people would no longer have adequate representation and their interests would be lost in Congress. To this Publius responds that the citizens themselves elect the representatives (Federalist #53, p. 349) and that the representatives “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends” (Federalist #53, p. 350). In the first statement Publius essentially tells the skeptics to elect a good representative since they, the people, elect him to office. Publius goes on to say that just because representatives make the rules does not mean that they will have immunity. Representatives shall be held to the laws they create, which is one incentive to stay true to their electors.