The formation of the United States and the adoption of a uniform Constitution for the United States have a history that deserves a mention. This was the period when the federalists and anti-federalists them came into existence. Anti-federalism was the name given to two different political movements in the late eighteenth century in the United States: The first anti-federalist movement of the 1780s, opposed the creation of a stronger national government, such as allowed the Constitution and tried to keep it as it was established in the Articles of Confederation in 1777. The second anti-federalist movement was formed in response to the tax laws of Alexander Hamilton in the first term of George Washington. This movement is sometimes called the …show more content…
Leaders among the Federalists included Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. According to them, each State must have an independent and sovereign government. There were several arguments placed against the adoption of the Constitution. Jefferson is much more optimistic Hamilton. He thinks when citizens are informed, they are able to make the right decisions for themselves and their state. If it opposes the creation of a national bank is that it feared that corrupt politicians will take the opportunity to increase their personal wealth. On the other hand, Jefferson believes that if the Constitution does not expressly granted to the federal government and did not specifically prohibits states that power should be given to States. All federal power that is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution is illegitimate; it must be void of States ("nullification"). He thinks that the best government is that which governs least, involving the widest possible autonomy of states. Federalism assumes that the central government still keeps more power than the regions. Or rather anti-federalism is the legal concept of confederation. In the confederation, local still keeps more power than the upper level. It is this form of top-down organization that existed before the ratification of the Constitution.
Both
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.
"It would swallow up all the delegated powers [of the states], and reduce the whole to one power. "-Jefferson referring to the Bank. He was strongly against big government and felt it would oppress the common man. "I am not a friend of a very energetic government.it places the governors indeed more at their ease, at the expense of the people." Jefferson was also a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights, which protected the rights of the people.
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.
This passage places emphasis on one of the three arguments James Madison makes in Federalist 10. Madison explicates the deficit of factions specifically factions that could cause nothing but “mischief” for the United States. In this particular passage, he explains how factions are inevitable in our country, however, controlling the effect of factions would diminish their “mischievous impact.” Thus, prohibiting factions assists in reducing the probability of “[a] weaker party or an obnoxious individual” from gaining power over the minority. These smaller factions that Madison hopes to avoid are a direct result of “pure democracy” that he accounts as have “general[ly]…short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Therefore, this particular fragment from federalist 10 serves as the precedent to the introduction of a mixed Constitution of a democracy and republic, in this case, a large republic.
Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists, a name referring to a balance of power between the states and the national government. They argued for a federal system as in the Constitution. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous that it looked because the separation of powers protected people from tyrannical abuse. The Federalists compile a group of essays, known as The Federalist Papers. In No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and they system of checks an balances would protect Americans from the tyranny of centralized authority. He wrote that opposite motives among government office holders were good, and was one of the advantages of a big government with different demographics. In No. 10, he said that there was no need to fear factions, for not enough power would be given to the faction forming people; thus, they wouldn't become tyrannical. Hamilton, in No. 84, defended the Constitution with the case that the Constitution can be amended by representatives, who are there to represent the citizens' interests.
Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 were a series of essays written by James Madison, arguing for the ratification of the U.S Constitution. Before the ratification, the Articles of Confederation only bounded the thirteen colonies, uniting them as military alliance rather than a cohesive government. The central government lacked authority; the national government could not collect taxes or force states to comply with their laws. The lack of a strong central government made it difficult for states to operate effectively as one single nation. The state legislatures had too much power under the Articles, so Madison’s goal was to restrain the power of the states. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, wrote the Federalist Papers to encourage the citizens to support the ratification of the Constitution. Federalist No.10 and No. 51 are highly regarded in comparison to the rest of the essays. Federalist No.10 is the introduction to Madison’s contributions of the series. Madison addresses the question of "factions" and disastrous effect to our liberties. Madison argues that a strong and large republic would best control the effects of factions, rather than a smaller republic. Madison also argues for representation in government rather than direct democracy. With delegates, the passions of the people would-be filtered, and only the ideas that are good for the majority of the people would prevail. Madison expands his argument in Federalist No.10 by having three separate branches of government, the judicial, legislative, and executive. Each branch would be independent and have equal power. Madison also notes that people are fundamentally flawed, so government needs to be able to control their passions. Madison states, “If men were angels, no government would b...
Philosophers that shaped and influenced the Federalist include Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu and John Locke. These philosophers believed in natural rights and built branches of government that would protect these natural rights. They believed that all men are instinctively selfish individuals and strive for self-preservation. From their viewpoint, balancing mans selfish desires and the desire to safeguard the community would be the ideal form of government for man. These philosophers built their ideas around the theory that too much liberty is bad for society. In order to avoid creating a strong central government comparable to Great B...
Going hand in hand with his detestation of large, extremely controlling national governments, Jefferson was intent on having no national bank present in the US, but Hamilton was certain the country would benefit from one. For example, in a personal letter written by Alexander Hamilton, he wrote, “Mr. Madison, co-operating with Mr. Jefferson, is at the head of a faction, decidedly hostile to me, and my administration; and actuated by views... subversive of the principals of good government, and dangerous to the Union... Mr. Jefferson... [displays] his dislike of... funding [the] debt.” (Doc 2) Hamilton implied that by not advocating a national bank, Jefferson did not want to help the country pay off its debt. Jefferson, however, was dead set against having a national bank because he wanted the common people, such as the farmers, to have maximum influence on the government. This way, a strong central government could not have supreme political, economic, and social power, all of which together would open the doors for future corruption, even if the government was set up in the manner directed in the Constitution. Jefferson defended this judgement to the extent that he formed a political party so it could develop into a well-supported suggestion. Thus, the perspective on national banks could more efficiently progress into the point where it impacted the whole country and prevented the formation of a national bank. Equally, the excise tax proposed by Alexander Hamilton and carried out by Congress, factored in on Hamilton and Jefferson’s feud on having a national bank. In a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, he manifested his reaction to the excise tax by commenting, “The excise tax is an infernal one... [the public’s]
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
The Anti-Federalists were not in favor of ratifying the new Constitution. Some Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, others wanted to add some things and change some things in the new Constitution before they agreed to ratify it. Some very important Anti-Federalist’s were Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee. Anti-Federalists tended to be poorer and in lower classes than the Federalists. These people feared a central government and were afraid that the government proposed by the new Constitution could easily turn into a tyranny. The Federalists argued that the United States needed a strong central government in order to stand a chance against foreign powers, amongst other reasons that were all beneficial
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.
The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.
One argument that the Anti-Federalists had against the forming of a new constitution was that they claimed it would “lead to a new consolidation system of government” and the leaders of Philadelphia intended “such a system and that the consolidated system would in the end destroy republican government and individual liberty as well as the independence of the states.” (Lewis 2) The Federalists feared that the government would have so much power it would be abused. They were constantly speculating about what would happen to the Unit...
When a case advances to the Supreme Court, the court asks a strange question: Is the law constitutional? The court is not overly concerned with the morality of the law. Admittedly, ethics are always a consideration, but when the time comes to make a ruling, the court bases its decision chiefly on Constitutionality. Amazingly, two hundred years after its conception, citizens of the United States remain fixated on the Constitution as the foundation of their society. And this happens on both sides of the aisle, on one side conservatives claim the second amendment provides them with a constitutional right to own an AK-47, while on the other, liberals argue that net neutrality protects their right to the freedom of speech. However, if the framers
Even before the Constitution was ratified, strong argument were made by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers urging the inclusion of a federal form of government to replace the failed confederation. In Federalist Paper No. 9 Hamilton states, “This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is s kind of assemblage of societies that constitutes a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, until they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of a united body” (Usinfo.state.gov). The people of the United States needed a central government that was capable of holding certain powers over the states.