The quality of a secondary history text is dependent on the ability of an author to not only research the topic as well as come up with an original argument, but also how well they are able to remove their personal bias’s when forming arguments and coming to conclusions. As easy as it is to understand this and write it on a page, succeeding in accomplishing the aforementioned tasks is not as easy of a proposition however. In 1960 John C. Miller and HarperCollins Publishers Inc. published The Federalist Era: 1789-1801. The Federalist Era is an extremely thorough study of the era in which the foundation of the United States of America was constructed and the federal government began to take shape at its very heart. After earning his PhD. in …show more content…
More specifically, Miller refines his themes to focus on the measures he believed were “...necessary to promote the growth, prosperity, and cohesion of the United States...” as well as how the individual was to be protected from the government in regard to his ability to freely “...exercise his constitutional rights.” Summarizing himself in one sentence, “...the dominant themes of this book are Union and Liberty.” (pg.XIII) These themes of union and liberty in many ways are pitted against one another in essence of the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist, or what became the Democratic-Republican vs Federalist debate. The federalists desired to create a union among the American states, believing that it would create the greatest chance of success in their 'the great experiment'. Democratic-Republicans on the other hand were looking at the other side of the same coin. They too wished to establish a stable environment for the 'experiment' to unfold and take shape, however they were concerned with losing the liberties that had been promised to them. Afraid the forfeiture of state rights and subsequent consolidation of power in a federal government would end up creating a government equivalent to that of Great Britain, Democratic Republicans were unwilling to trade one tyrannical government for another and even after the Constitutional Convention major divisions existed. The problems that plagued the young American nation were rooted in these very arguments and the growing pains that ensued are documented by Miller in his
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.
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.
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
In The Federalist Papers by James Madison, Madison discuses various aspects of government and how the government must be organized in order to better represent the people. In The Federalist, No. 10 Madison discusses the nature of political factions and parties and how they can affect the government and its practices. The Federalist, No. 51 discusses instead how the government being in branches helps maintain liberties and better protect the American people. The topics mentioned in The Federalist Papers continue to explain and structure our government today.
Madison begins perhaps the most famous of the Federalist papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interests, and infringe upon the rights of others.
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
The federalists view saw the republicans view as a weakness. They insisted on a stronger common government. The federalists had an understanding that there could only be one sovereign in a political system, one final authority that everyone must obey and no one can appeal. They thought this was the only effective way in creating an effective central government. The independent states seemed to think it was clear that each one of them were independently sovereign, although based on history only small countries were suitable for the republican government. With history proving the republicans wrong for trying to create a republican government in the states the federalists were slowly trying to create a stronger central government. There first step was making the sovereign states agree to the Articles of Confederation which established a close alliance of independent states. The federalist central government was referred to as a “confederacy”.
The Anti-Federalists had many views that were different than those of the Federalists. One the differences that seems to be important, is who they view as “The people”. The Anti-Federalists believed that common people should be able to be active participants of their government; this involvement includes having a say in the laws that are made and the protection of everyday working class people. This common man involvement is reinforced by the fact that the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep government more local, by having strong state governments. Using Rogers Smith’s Civic Ideals as a foundation, this essay illustrates that the view of the Anti-Federalists is that the United States of America is combined of many different people, and that representation should be based on these differences rather than just the elite population.
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...
James Madison was a very intelligent man and was one of the forefathers for our country. In Madison’s Federalist Paper Number 10 he describes the need to control factions in the United States and how the government is to do so. The Federalist papers are a key point in describing how to control “factions” that are so dangerous to the young government, or so Madison feels. In Madison’s paper he clearly lays out his idea on the sources of factions, his feelings on democracy versus a republic, and how to control factions.
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.
Newman, John. UNITED STATES HISTORYPreparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. Second Edition. New York: AMSCO SCHOOL PUBLICATIONS, INC, 2010. eBook. .
George Browm Tindall, David Emory Shi. American History: 5th Brief edition, W. W. Norton & Company; November 1999
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.