After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union. According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche... ... middle of paper ... ... The Opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts.” In The William and Mary Quarterly 65, no. 3. Virginia: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2008. Bradburn, Douglas. “State v. Federal.” In The Citizenship Revolution. Charlottesville, 2009. Brutus. “Anti-Federalist VI.” In The Antifederalist Papers. New York, 1788. Cato. “Anti-Federalist IV.” In The Antifederalist Papers. New York, 1788. Madison, James. “Bill of Rights.” In The United States Constitution. Washington D.C., 1791. Madison, James. “Federalist #45.” In The Federalist Papers. Virginia, 1788. Taylor, Alan. “From Fathers to Friends of the People: Political Personas in the Early Republic.” In The Journal of the Early Republic 11, no. 4. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Wood, Gordon. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.
From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together.
In the concluding fourth section entitled “Independence” Holton brings the crux of his argument to fruition, arguing convincingly that Virginia's elites were pushed ever further down the road to open rebellion by the actions of several different groups, whose contributions to the founding of the United States have been overlooked by historians. Holton's conclusion offers a vision of pluralistic causation behind the final decision of the gentry class to finally make the break with Britain and highlights the need for further research and study of points raised in this monograph concerning the contributions these marginal groups in the founding of the United States.
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
There are many differences between the Democratic-Republic party and the Federalist Party. Especially in the last decade of the 18th century which is late 1700’s, early 1800’s. They have different views on foreign relations and their beliefs on the war between France and Britain, their Federal government and vision for America. Their leaders are completely different people.
One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic
The Federalists and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals such as all men were born equal (even though most of these men owned slaves), but their opinions about the role of government were different. Both parties had their own visions of how a new government would function and how the Constitution would support the government being proposed. Many argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak government with very limited power. Specifically, the amount of power or the absence of power of a central government was the main disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As a result, the Federalists and Anti-federalists argued about the ratification of a new constitution, which would give the central government more power.
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers played a major role in US History. They dealt with many problems in politics. The papers were made after the Revolutionary war. People started to worry that the government would not last under the Articles of Confederation. Without having a backup plan just yet, some delegates met up and created the Constitution. The constitution had to be ratified before it became the rule of all the land. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers discuss whether the constitution should be approved or not. Some things Anti-Federalist and Federalists argued was a strong national government, a standing army, and whether or not the constitution should be ratified and why.
Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.
Since the Dawn of time, man was had many beliefs from the belief of gods or a god, democracy and communism. In the beginning days of our nation (United States of America) the bill of rights was being created due to American Revolution and the weakness of the articles of the confederation. The articles of confederation were the constitution at the time for the United States of America before and after the American Revolution, which we fought against the tyranny of the British government. The American government at the time realized the Articles of Confederation was weak and need to be changed. This resulted in the bill rights being drafted and added into the US Constitution. But before the bill rights
However the federalist lost out to a new Republican government. Federalist saw a government that would be defined by expansive state power and public submission to the rule of elites however; Jefferson (a republican) said the American nation drew energy and strength from the confidence of a reasonable and rational people. “Once the legitimate party prevailed, Madison and his allies believed, the “monocratic” crisis would end, parties would be rendered unnecessary, and the high-minded decision of enlightened natural leaders would, at last, guide the nation.” (Wilentz, pg. 65). A strong central government would be one with checks and balances to keep fairness as well as branches to represent different parts of government. A strong government would also help to prevent riots and chaos in America when people did not like the decisions made. However, it still upheld the ideals of a weak central government where fairness of the people was in place. Incompletion the formation of the Republican opposition in the 1790’s continued the legacy of the American Revolution through inclusion of all Americans and fairness in the
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.