More handpicked essays just for you.
Federalism and anti federalism
Alexander Hamilton Thomas Jefferson
Essays on federalist versus anti federalist
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Federalism and anti federalism
The United States Constitution, in its conception, was a hot topic that brewed vigorous debates throughout the country. On one side there were the Anti-Federalist, who opposed the new system because they feverishly believed it would allow an overreaching federal government that could take away their sovereignty. On the other side, the Federalist, believed that a stronger centralized government was crucial for the preservation of the new budding republic. A staunch supporter of a strong centralized government, Alexander Hamilton was one of many who took up the call to champion a new system of government. Like many of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton sought to coerce his fellow countrymen through a series of pamphlets that were distributed throughout the thirteen states. One of his pamphlets, Federalist 70, stood out as one of his most successful arguments for a stronger federal government. It’s here that Hamilton attempts to justify the need for a stronger and more robust Executive (President). Calculated and meticulous, Hamilton’s Federalist 70 succeeds in explaining and justifying the necessity of the executive while also quelling the fears They argued that a powers granted to the executive were akin to a monarch and thus, by its own design, not compatible with a republic. The Anti-Federalist believed that in order to remedy this solution a plural executive system was a necessary. Hamilton’s response to the objection was simple: a plural executive system could not operate cohesively. He theorized that a plural executive system requiring the division of power between multiple executives would ultimately destroy the executive branch in two ways. The first method would be the even distribution of power amongst all the executives. The second method would require one executive to be empowered, but under strict supervision by way of a
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
Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist. A federalist is Supporter of the Constitution during the debate over its ratification; someone who favored a strong central government. Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution. This means that he believed that the Constitution was a set of guidelines that did not need to be followed strictly. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation's wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote
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.
He states that the government had too many leaders and not enough followers. That the government administrated by too many people who had a different motive on running the state. In addition, Madison agreed to what Hamilton was saying. Therefore, Madison helped Hamilton settle this dilemma. “It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is a force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.” (Hamilton) Hamilton father explains why this would be a problem with government and predicts what might happen if it reaches to that point. “To this reasoning, it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.” (Hamilton) Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the 18th and 19th Federalist paper. The 18th article spoke about contradicting the argument of anti-federalists that proposed a monarchical rule in America. Madison states that if the anti-federalist and federalist do not collaborate on the rule that they established for the people. They would become like the people in Greek history. “Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes.” Demonstrating a jealous view of power and disorganized fashion. “Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
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.
...der Hamilton shaped the New World and the way in which policies were managed. Today’s United States government mirrors more the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, but it seems the majority of her people prefer the vision of Thomas Jefferson; the idealistic dream of true freedom and of the ability to shape one’s own destiny. Would it be the other way around if the current state of government was turned? For sure, if one vision had prevailed wholly over the other, the outcome would be substantial in modern society; Hamilton’s vision would have created another England and Jefferson’s – who knows?
Federalists such as Hamilton supported ratification. But Anti-Federalists, who feared that the document gave too much power to the federal government, worked to convince the states to reject it. Hamilton believed that the ratification was necessary because giving more power to the central government was essential for the nation's survival. In The Federalist Papers Hamilton sets the stage for those that would follow, entitling that "The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty." The essay...
"This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches- the objects to be provided for by a federal government, the quantity of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons whom that power ought to operate," writes Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #23 in reference to the separation of powers. The basic concept here is the idea of the federal government being divided into three separate branches that would balance excessive democracy through a system of checks on each other. The three branches, respectively known as the legislature (Article I), the executive (Article II), and the judiciary (Article III), were designed to entice the opponents of the Co...
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.
“[T]he man on the ten-dollar bill is the father of the American treasury system, a signer of the Constitution, one of the primary authors of the Federalist Papers, and the loser of the infamous duel with Vice President Aaron Burr. Alexander Hamilton's earlier career as a Continental Army officer is less well known. Yet Hamilton's first experience in public service is important, not only because it was the springboard to his later career, but because it also deeply influenced his values and thinking” (Hamilton).
A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated that Congress was denied the power of taxation meaning the national government was given no money to regulate federal spending. Money could only be requested from the states and states had the ability to not guarantee the request. Among the lack of enforcement and taxation was the denied power to regulate commerce trade for the national government in other words the federal government could not build a strong economy. All these factors and others included lead to the fall of the Articles of Confederation. Guiding towards Constitutional Convention, where the present day Constitution was written and signed by 38 of the 41 delegates present on September 17, 1787. This paper discusses why the Founding Father’s designed the Constitution as they did and how this design has affected our system today.
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.