Federalist Argument Essay

1822 Words 7 Pages
The entirety of the Federalist Papers was written on the basis of one singular goal: to ratify the constitution. However, as the Constitution was in the stages of ratification, two distinct groups, the federalists and the anti-federalists formed. One, the federalists, heavily favored the Constitution, arguing that its principles were the ideal base of forming a Country, while the anti-federalists believed that the new changes may threaten liberty. They were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution because they feared the national government would be given too much power, and would eventually evolve into a system of government similar to the British monarchy. In this paper, I will examine the analyze the most important arguments written …show more content…
“It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate.”This is incredibly significant, as Madison goes on to list Sparta, Rome, and Carthage as three prominent republics (if not the only republics) that fall under this model. Although there are significant differences between the models of these three civilizations and the model put forth by the U.S. Constitution, such as the lifelong Senate, the fact remains that they provide a basis for the claim that there is a very clear necessity for some kind of institution that will “blend stability with liberty”. History is the greatest predictor of future success, so it makes sense that Madison would use historical examples as reasons to adopt the idea of a Senate. If there is tangible evidence that other, well known societies have thrived as a result of the system, there is a clear precedent and it can be reasonably inferred that the United States would thrive as …show more content…
In regard to the issue of impeachment, it’s heavily stressed that the court that conducts this trial must be extremely well qualified and have personal experience with the politicians at hand. Hamilton writes on the second page of his essay, “Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it”. This powerful statement implies that the Senators, with their experience and, are best able to look at a case and some to the most logical conclusion through the arguments given and their background knowledge of the situation. On the same page, he asks the reader what other part of the government would have the true and undoubted confidence in the situation to go through with the process. There is truly no other body that is sufficiently dignified. This has to be reassuring to a hesitant New York, knowing that they will be defended in case of a corrupt high official. They can have confidence knowing that any bad apple will be dealt with accordingly and in a just manner. The model of impeachment also goes back to the historical examples, as he points out the model of Great Britain where in their civilization, “…the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to

Related Documents