Federalist Vs Constitution

Improved Essays
The American government that we have today was based off the proposals of the Federalists who wrote essays to persuade those who were in opposition, that the proposed Constitution would be quite beneficial. The authors have provided solutions to what made the old Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, fail; as well as, discussing how the structure of the government would be like if the proposed Constitution were to be implemented. James Madison especially, discussed about the importance of controlling factions and how a well functioning government should be structured; which is explained through Federalist papers 10 and 39. The ideas in these two essays are the core of what American government is supposed to be; it states that the people …show more content…
Constitution. The Federalist provided many essays that strengthened their claim that a newly proposed U.S. Constitution would be beneficiary, one of which would the essay number 45. According to Blunt (1990), with the implementation of the Articles of Confederation, America could be depicted as “a nation without an executive, one beset with the problems of a decentralized and uncontrollable system” (para. 2). Madison wrote in Federalist paper No. 45 that the American government should have the enough authority to protect the public good because it would be disconcerting if the second U.S. Constitution would repeat the same mistake that the Articles of Confederation brought up. If the national government did not have the power to maintain and control conflict between states then there is no point to having a federal government. Another key point that can be described as a strength for the proposal of the U.S. Constitution would be Alexander Hamilton providing six provisions that would protect the citizens of the United States, but as well denying the concept of a Bill of Rights. Hamilton stated that the concept of a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous. An example that affirms Hamilton’s distrust of the Bill of Rights can be made in terms of lawyers in the United States. Lawyers generally operate in ways that go against historical accuracy …show more content…
Constitution a reality, there are also weaknesses in their arguments. In Federalist paper No. 10, Madison describes factions as being impossible to eradicate because it is just the nature of man to form factions. In addition, Madison also states that with a representative form of government, the largest faction will dominate the government, which will result in a lower amount of conflict between factions. A big weakness in Madison’s claim is that he “failed to foresee the calamitous impact of the system of slavery” (Knott, 2011, para. 2). Madison failed to envision a moment in time where the larger faction dominated the country and those who were minority factions rebelled in opposition of the ideals of the larger faction. In the case of slavery, where the majority and minority factions were fighting against each other to either continue or end slavery. The American Civil War is a moment in history where a larger faction was dominating and conflict was not reduced, but in fact, erupted into a civil war. Furthermore, Madison also described how the structure of American government should be in Federalist paper No. 51. Madison explains that the government shall be divided government with different powers and each section of government has the ability to check the actions of the other sections, to deem them unconstitutional or not. Even though this concept of separation of powers and

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    After the American War for Independence, the Americans were under the control of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation set up a weak national government. This system was highly ineffective because the creators of it did not want to restrict the rights of the people as the tyrannical British leaders had in the past. Certain events, such as Shays’ Rebellions, stressed the need for a stronger centralized government. In place of the Articles of Confederation was the US Constitution, the supporters of the Constitution were called the Federalists and the people against it were called the Anti-Federalists.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why was this a “Critical Period?” To put it simply, its purpose was to unite the country under a new power that did not have the same flaws that Great Britain had while they governed its colonies. In the process of creating a new legal document that countered Parliament, America actually created a few problems of its own. From Gordon S. Woods’s essay, the Articles of Confederation was seen as a weak document. Its weakness in part comes from the idea that the Colonists…

    • 1223 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In disagreement with those that opposed a strong central government, contended that it was necessary. In Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton explains the necessity for ratification. It states “it will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution.” Alexander Hamilton is stating to allow the passage of the new constitution to keep that nation stable, and promote a non-hostile environment. This is a departure from the events that lead up to the Articles of Confederation. In order to do this, Alexander Hamilton along with the other authors of the Federalist Papers, required a strong central government.…

    • 1295 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Republican Party Formation

    • 1039 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In 1854 the Republican Party impeded any chance of preserving the Union, for Lincoln stated “In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed” (Lincoln, “House Divided”). The formation of the party happened as the issues of slavery was becoming a bigger issue. Their views and campaign of abolishing slavery made the issue even worse than it was due to the fact that it influenced people to take action against it. Therefore, the formation of the Republican Party was the sole reason for why the Civil War took place. It has since made compromise hard to accomplish and friction between the two parties intensify.…

    • 1039 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The main differences between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson lie behind what they thought the principle of government was. According to Hamilton, government was needed to protect individual liberties. Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist Party also known as the Hamiltonians, who strongly supported his ideas. They believed in order for Americans to be free they needed a strong central government ran by well-educated people such as Hamilton himself, to protect individual liberty. “He advocated a strong central government, and refused to be bound by the strict wording of the constitution” (PG.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Anti-Federalists fought for a Bill of Rights to be included within the Constitutional framework governing the federal government so as to explicitly codify individual rights under the law. Their skepticism regarding the nature of government recognized state action and the liberties of the individual citizen are typically antithetical in nature and in need of explicit protection. Some Federalists on the other hand were actually fearful of such methods, worrying that explicitly listing the rights of the individual was an inherently limiting approach to liberty – with the idea that those which were not listed were not fundamentally retained by the people. James Madison stated, “[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.” James Madison original position prior to Constitutional ratification and the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that the Constitution inherently restricted the powers of the national government to those that were clearly defined.…

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Judicial Review is a dangerous power that takes the form of an oligarchy that I strongly disagree of. The authority of the courts to have the power of reviewing the actions of Congress is dangerous and shall not be decided upon by the courts. It allows for that group to manipulate the system in their hands with what they believe themselves to be right and wrong or considerably constitutional. However, that is all too much for just a few people to have the decision to decide. I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalists vs Anti-Federalists After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the weak Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. It was turned over to the states for approval and for some it brought back fears and memories of King George, while for others it fixed the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Upon completion of it’s writing, a debate was started concerning ratification. Some people believed that the Constitution gave too much power to a central government while others thought it was a great step forward and necessary for the future of the U.S.A. The Federalists were those who were for the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists were those against it.…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    These exact enumerated unalienable rights and liberties that were ironically influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689,among others. The Federalist Papers had a letter as done by James Madison, wholly dedicated to the opposition of this. James Madison felt as though this Bill of Rights was unnecessary due to provisions already in place in the U.S. Constitution, yet as the states Anti-Federalist resilience became clear, James Madison himself scripted these unalienable rights and liberties to mitigate, those of which have become synonymous with American…

    • 1188 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Traditionally, the depiction of our American forefathers regards them as individuals who were relentless concerned with structuring a solid platform of laws rooted upon coordinated logic and practical ideals. However, Jack Rakove’s theory says otherwise. He retaliates his position through series of elaborated material and reasoning to support his thesis. In Jack Rakove’s article “‘The Great Compromise’: Drafting the American Constitution” he elaborates on the notion of the well-regarded ‘pragmatic character’ towards the traditional image of our American forefathers. He states “the great challenge of is to balance this image of Convention with persuasive evidence that a concern with principle and theory played a powerful role in the debates of 1787” (20).…

    • 1142 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays