Federalist Papers
1

In Federalist Paper #1, it was stated that history will teach that emphasis on the rights of man is far more likely to end in despotism and tyranny than emphasis on “firmness and efficiency of government” (Federalist No. 1, 2008). In other words, Hamilton and the Federalists were now trying to back track and step back from America’s emphasis on the Rights of Man (Paine’s philosophy and words) eloquently put forward in the Declaration of Independence and used to justify the revolt against the Crown. Now that independence had been gained, the Federalists wanted a strong, central government that they themselves could control so that they could effectively lord it over the individual states and circumvent any autonomy or individual states asserting their rights. The best example of this, of course, would be the Civil War, in which the Federal government would deny the states the right to leave the Union, even though there was no law prohibiting it. The Federalists wanted to run the U.S. and the first thing they had to do was back track from the philosophy and focus on individual rights that had been used to justify the Revolutionary War in the first place.

2

In Federalist No. 10, the cause of factions is said to be in the “nature of man”—i.e., man is by nature corrupt and prone to dissension. Madison states that the corrupt nature of man makes him predisposed to have “a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions” and that all these differences and attachments inevitably make men divided. The fact that men tend to differ on religion, politics, etc., is what causes factions and throughout history has “inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good” (Federalist No. 10, 2008). To control for the effects, Madison proposes curbing man’s liberty and forcing conformity upon him so that all share the same beliefs, attitudes and perspectives.

3

The statement, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” (Federalist No. 51, 2008), means that men are not pure intellect or reason but are also made up of animal passions and can be quite irrational at times. Thus, because men are like this they need to have a government that will be able to govern them and protect them from themselves. Thus, this statement is used to justify the division of powers in that the division would keep men from inflicting harm upon themselves, as the division would operate in a kind of checks and balances manner. As is stated by the Federalist Paper 51, “in framing a government which is to be administered by men...…by their judgments” (Anti-Federalist No. 46, n.d.). It would in other words provide an alternate source of authority that could be used to keep the federal authorities in check—which would make sense for Federalists, since they were the ones arguing for checks and balances as well. Yet, they opposed a Bill of Rights—precisely because it would theoretically keep their power in check and restrain their control over the states.

4

Anti-Federalist Paper #84 states that the Constitution needs to be “founded on a declaration or bill of rights” because otherwise there would be no clear provisions about specific types of rights that man should have—such as rights regarding a person who has been accused of a crime. The individual states had bills of rights regarding this type of right, and they had them because they deemed it necessary to define the rights. Without definition nothing could be assumed. Thus the anti-federalists deemed it vital for the Constitution to have a Bill of Rights because they felt it would keep the federal government’s rights in check as well. If only what was permitted to the government was defined, and states rights and individual rights were just assumed to be covered by everything else, the lack of definition would make it so that there would be a lot of room for commandeering of power. The Anti-Federalists did not want a central government taking on too much authority for itself.