First Short Essay
One thing was clear during the convention of 1787, there were an astonishing number of viewpoints that clashed wherever they could. The main topic for debate was the distribution of control. Who would make the decisions for the people the state government or national government? The worry was that if the state government had primary control over the people's interests, who would police them? The Federalists wanted to make sure that the state government officials did not influence political policy to further their own interests. In this short essay, I will briefly discuss Elitism and how the Federalist argument for a stronger central government uses the idea of pluralism. The way I view the Constitutional Convention and the debate over the ratification of the constitution in 1787 is a struggle between two points of view. On one side you have the Federalists and on the other Anti-federalists. Leading the Federalist enterprise was Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay who wrote eighty-five essays that were to convince the people of New York to vote for the newly written Constitution. The new Constitution was constructed to form a stronger central government and avoid the pitfalls of a government run by individuals. Madison describes right from the start, introducing the "mortal disease" that always destroys popular government. You might think that he was referring to tyrants like George III. But instead, he points to factions or groups that pursue their self-interest. Even though not stated as such, Madison is arguing against Elitism. What is Elitism? “The theory of Elitism is that power rests in the hands of a small number of wealthy and powerful people – corporate executives or top government officials.” This is exactly the notion that James Madison was trying to convey. “In each local area, one economic interest is likely to predominate – farmers, merchants, big manufacturers, or even poor people eager to tax the rich. Since the same local group will always be in the majority, it is difficult to stop that group from taking advantage of the minority.” The Anti-federalists were, for the most part, happy with how the system was working so far. With the states in control of their territory, they are opposed to the ratification of the constitution because they believe it would give the government too much power and infringes on people's liberty. However, this idea system of government was highly susceptible, according to Madison and Hamilton, to groups with their own idea of government control and procedure. Now here’s the kicker, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, as they argue their points for a stronger centralized government and not wishing to allow powerful interest groups or wealthy officials gain control over state affairs, included in their federalist papers, government protection over land. So this inclusion of protection for landowners was in a sense protecting the wealthy since they were the only people with land or property at the time. So are the Federalists endorsing Elitism? Not necessarily, James Madison views of how property should be protected didn’t have any influence on large interest groups. However, Anti-federalists didn’t see it that way. “Speaking in broad brush terms about the Anti-Federalists, theirs was a vision that celebrated localism and feared centralization of authority. The American Revolution, of course, was a revolution that had been fought not simply for freedom, but for localism. "No taxation without …show more content…
To this day, both sides, Anti-Federalist and Federalist, sound persuasive. The Anti-Federalists focused on the American want for local governments that respond directly to popular concerns. The Federalists argued that only a national government could really protect the people’s rights and turn the new nation into a great power. But more than just this are many other issues including that smaller states, who feel that they are operating just fine, will get the short end of the straw. With smaller states, the idea of people governing themselves works. However, they wanted all the benefits of a larger government protection. As it stood before the Constitutional Convention, trade, money system, and property protection were not universally regulated and caused conflict for
One thing was clear during the convention of 1787, there were an astonishing number of viewpoints that clashed wherever they could. The main topic for debate was the distribution of control. Who would make the decisions for the people the state government or national government? The worry was that if the state government had primary control over the people's interests, who would police them? The Federalists wanted to make sure that the state government officials did not influence political policy to further their own interests. In this short essay, I will briefly discuss Elitism and how the Federalist argument for a stronger central government uses the idea of pluralism. The way I view the Constitutional Convention and the debate over the ratification of the constitution in 1787 is a struggle between two points of view. On one side you have the Federalists and on the other Anti-federalists. Leading the Federalist enterprise was Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay who wrote eighty-five essays that were to convince the people of New York to vote for the newly written Constitution. The new Constitution was constructed to form a stronger central government and avoid the pitfalls of a government run by individuals. Madison describes right from the start, introducing the "mortal disease" that always destroys popular government. You might think that he was referring to tyrants like George III. But instead, he points to factions or groups that pursue their self-interest. Even though not stated as such, Madison is arguing against Elitism. What is Elitism? “The theory of Elitism is that power rests in the hands of a small number of wealthy and powerful people – corporate executives or top government officials.” This is exactly the notion that James Madison was trying to convey. “In each local area, one economic interest is likely to predominate – farmers, merchants, big manufacturers, or even poor people eager to tax the rich. Since the same local group will always be in the majority, it is difficult to stop that group from taking advantage of the minority.” The Anti-federalists were, for the most part, happy with how the system was working so far. With the states in control of their territory, they are opposed to the ratification of the constitution because they believe it would give the government too much power and infringes on people's liberty. However, this idea system of government was highly susceptible, according to Madison and Hamilton, to groups with their own idea of government control and procedure. Now here’s the kicker, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, as they argue their points for a stronger centralized government and not wishing to allow powerful interest groups or wealthy officials gain control over state affairs, included in their federalist papers, government protection over land. So this inclusion of protection for landowners was in a sense protecting the wealthy since they were the only people with land or property at the time. So are the Federalists endorsing Elitism? Not necessarily, James Madison views of how property should be protected didn’t have any influence on large interest groups. However, Anti-federalists didn’t see it that way. “Speaking in broad brush terms about the Anti-Federalists, theirs was a vision that celebrated localism and feared centralization of authority. The American Revolution, of course, was a revolution that had been fought not simply for freedom, but for localism. "No taxation without …show more content…
To this day, both sides, Anti-Federalist and Federalist, sound persuasive. The Anti-Federalists focused on the American want for local governments that respond directly to popular concerns. The Federalists argued that only a national government could really protect the people’s rights and turn the new nation into a great power. But more than just this are many other issues including that smaller states, who feel that they are operating just fine, will get the short end of the straw. With smaller states, the idea of people governing themselves works. However, they wanted all the benefits of a larger government protection. As it stood before the Constitutional Convention, trade, money system, and property protection were not universally regulated and caused conflict for