Use our essay title generator to get ideas and recommendations instantly
Federalist and Anti-Federalist eview
Federalist papers were written in support of the ratification of the U.S. constitution while anti-federalists were written in opposition of the same. The most important papers in federalist series were paper 10 and 5 both written by James Madison on the subject of power distribution within the federation. Anti-federalist paper 3 was written under the pseudonym Brutus and meant to oppose the arguments raised by Madison on power distribution. Keeping in mind these papers and the arguments made in the same, we might ask ourselves how these authors will review the modern government and its power distribution. If we look at Federalist paper 10 and the arguments rose in the same, we might connect it closely to cases of internal insurgence that can arise in large republic because of factions or interest groups. Let us see if this applies to our country today. Factions are present…… [Read More]
Federalist hat is a faction? here in modern American politics do we see factions? How does Madison propose to quell the impact of factions in government?
In Federalist 10, James Madison discussed the types of factions, parties and interest groups that result from differences in wealth and property, as well as differences of opinion in religion, politics or ideology. He thought that differences in wealth and rank, at least those not based on birth, were determined by the diversity in faculties or abilities in human beings, and that government had to protect such diversity. Certainly, the two major political parties that exist today have significant differences by social class, religion, race, region and income, although there are also a huge number of factions, associations, lobbyists and interest groups outside of these parties. Factions and parties that did not have a majority would always be outvoted, but a majority party would…… [Read More]
The purpose of the Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers were prepared to ensure that a constitution was ratified to provide a perfect union. The Papers focused on the concept of a perfect and improved union. While this could be the primary purpose of the document, it was also concerned with other things. Aspects of the federalist like welfare, safety, and union are inseparable, and the union seems to be much of a means used to guarantee this for the people (Charles, 2009). Besides, the federalist papers consider federalism as a tool of achieving a free government in terms of security and peace.
The essays adding up to the federalist had a significant purpose. Immediately after its publication, it revealed to the people of New York the importance of ratifying the constitution. This word spread to all States in the union, which took the lead in the ratification of…… [Read More]
Federalist Paper #10, James Madison discusses the Union's ability to control and break the influence of specific factions over the governmental process. The paper includes many strengths, and a few weaknesses. Yet the overall paper convinced me of the purpose of the Union in this capacity.
Federalist Paper # 10 begins with a discussion of the problem at hand, that of how to control the factions of a nation. The paper discusses how factions, identified as "a number of citizens...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest..." (Federalist Paper #10, para 2), have historically been the downfalls of democracy. According to the paper, specific factions within the larger body of government often disregard the public opinion, and good of the public, to pursue their own regulations based on their own belief system. The paper also points out that while the people of the Union…… [Read More]
ritten more than two hundred years ago, Alexander Hamilton's, John Jay's and James Madison's Federalist Papers remain completely relevant in describing American political philosophy and clarifying the country's political history. The Federalist Papers outline some of the main causes for the creation of a new nation based on fundamental rights, freedoms, and personal liberties. As their title suggests, the papers set forth an argument in favor of a strong national government that could secure the personal safety and domestic security of all citizens of the United States. However, several of the papers contain ideas that have become outmoded or in some cases, incorrect.
In Paper 8, the authors describe the need for political unification of disparate states for military defense reasons. hen the states are unified under a federal government, they will be better protected from hostile external forces. In contrast, small states are vulnerable and must maintain…… [Read More]
This is unlike the President, who relies on reelections and his payment from the legislature. The standards for a President to be impeached are much greater, and he or she should have to face repercussions even during his or tenure in office. Thus the standard for impeaching the President should differ than that of a judge, and that judges should not be involved with the impeachment of the president.
This point is brought home again in Federalist Paper 65 which specifies "that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments" which reflects that the standard of impeaching the President is through the Senate. This is because judges, who are permanent in office as mentioned before are separate and irrelevant from the people, who are represented by the Senate. Also significant to the impeachment of the President is the fact that "conviction…… [Read More]
" However, the legislature, more so than the executive or even the more qualified judiciary must dominate, not because the legislature is more representative, but because, as it the legislature is even further divided into two bodies, this ensures that it will be the least tyrannical.
In short, the less able a branch of government is able to agree within itself, the better -- and the less able the three branches of government can arrive at a uniform consensus, the better, along Madison's way of thinking. Madison's sense of cynicism about men not being 'angels' and his idea that men are even perhaps less angelic when governing over other men runs through the text of "The Federalist 51." Cynicism, and also healthy fear about the power of what might be called the majority 'rabble' to make bad decisions, or to band together into factions and take control over the government:…… [Read More]
At the end of Hume's essay was a discussion that could not help being of interest to Madison. Hume expressed that in a large government there is enough room to refine the democracy, from the lower people, who may be admitted into the first elections of the commonwealth, to the higher magistrate, who direct all of the movements.
Madison had developed his own theory of the extended republic. It is interesting to see how he took these scattered and incomplete fragments and built on them to make them into an intellectual and theoretical structure of his own. Madison's first full statement of this hypothesis appeared in his "Notes on the Confederacy" written in April 1787, eight months before the final version of it was published as the tenth federalist. Starting with the proposition that "in republican government, the majority, ultimately give the law." Madison then asks, what is to restrain…… [Read More]
Efforts were made to check the power of the majority as well as the minority, for to achieve justice not simply in the perfection of the individual soul but to create a functioning and just government that has effective checks and balances that stymie the pursuit of happiness of its citizens, "is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but also to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority is united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Justice is when both the majority and the minority have equal rights to speak, to fail, and succeed in Publius' view, in a world lacking philosophically angelic and perfect institutions.
Plato. "Phaedo." MIT Classics Archive. Last…… [Read More]
Federalist Paper #51
The theory behind Madison's Federalist Paper #51 is an acknowledgement that the "have-nots" in any society are extremely likely to seek retribution against the "haves," and, like Hamilton, believed class struggle is inseparable from politics. Positioning himself in this manner clearly shows that he had emancipated himself from the sterile dualistic view of society that was so common in the eighteenth century and that so obsessed Hamilton. However, wherein Hamilton viewed the shared spirit of the several states as poisonous to the union, Madison was aware that the preservation of state governments could serve the cause of both liberty and union and because of extreme vastness of the United States at that time this was the most steadfast way to preserve the union.
It is interesting to note that the Federalist papers are unique as well because of the extreme amount of thought that was put into…… [Read More]
However, Madison believed that a republican form of government could control for the impact of factions on the political process.
Madison believed that a republican form of government had several advantages over a straight democracy. First, under a democracy, there is no delegation of power to elected officials, which would make it unduly cumbersome to govern a country as large as America. Second, Madison believed that by entrusting the government to a small group of elected officials, one might be able to avoid the clashing and fighting that marked the existing political debate. However, Madison was not na ve; he recognized that a republican form of government was ripe for abuse if the elected offices were held by factious persons. To remedy that problem, Madison suggested that the number of elected officials be sufficiently large, "in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it…… [Read More]
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…… [Read More]
Primary Source Analysis
On September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by 39 delegates from 12 states in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after spending the summer debating the final form in the first Constitutional Convention. The Constitution represented in part an attempt to prevent the dissolution of the confederacy of states formed by the shared goal of independence, by forming a strong federal government (hodenhamel, 1987, p. 6).
Once the Constitution had been signed it had to be ratified by at least nine states before the federal government could be formed. To urge the states to ratify, a series of influential essays were published in New York newspapers by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, under the pseudonym Publius (hodenhamel, 1987, p. 45). This collection of essays was called The Federalist Papers (Genovese, 2009).
Historians have since recognized that the most influential of…… [Read More]
The Federalists advocated a strong central government while the Anti-Federalists advocated state governments. The former feared that division would lead to fighting and instability. The latter feared that centralized power would lead to the kind of totalitarianism that the American Revolutionaries had just victoriously opposed in the War for Independence. This paper will describe why I would align myself with the Anti-Federalists because of their aversion for centralized power.
The difference between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was all about what kind of government the United States would have. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution (which we have today) because it defined the ways in which states would be subject to a federal government and the ways in which they would be free to act on their own. The view of the Federalists was that the Constitution would protect the states from "domestic factions and convulsions" and provide unity…… [Read More]
The penning of the American Constitution during the 1787 Philadelphia convention was followed by its ratification. This formal process delineated within Article 7 necessitated at least 9 states’ agreement to implement the Constitution, prior to actually enacting it (Pole, 1987). Whilst the Federalists supported ratification, Anti-Federalists were against it.
Those opposed to the constitution’s ratification claimed that it accorded disproportionate power to federal authorities, whilst robbing local and state bodies of their power, excessively. According to Anti-Federalists, the American federal government wouldn’t be able to adequately represent its citizens owing to the size of the nation and its population which deemed it impossible for federal branches to locally respond to citizens’ concerns (Lewis, 1967; Amar, 1993). Moreover, they were concerned about the absence of the provision of criminal jury trials, besides the absence of a bill of rights within the Constitution, and desired guaranteed protection of a few fundamental freedoms for citizens, including freedom…… [Read More]
Project Title: Ratifying the U.S. Constitution
I chose this topic because I feel that our country went from being a loose union of individual states to being a nation with a central government when the Constitution was ratified. This was more important than the War for Independence, because it dictated the type of government we would have. The Federalists, led by Hamilton, wanted a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists wanted every state to be its own government. The guiding question for me is: Should the U.S. have ratified the Constitution or stayed a loose confederation?
I found most of my research online, using Google to help me with my web browsing. For primary sources, I was able to locate all the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers at Constitution.org and Yale.edu. This gave me a sense of what the actual debate was about at the time. For modern day perspective, I found…… [Read More]
Madison's Relevance Today: Modern Echoes of Federalist No.
The Federalist Papers penned by James Madison, John Jay, and others in defense of the Constitution during the hotly contested period of its ratification remain some of the most significant documents in American political history to this date. Detailing the arguments of some of the men who helped to frame and influence the composition of the foundational body of laws and structure of government of what is now the most powerful nation on Earth, reading the Federalist Papers is akin to reading the minds of those that have helped to shape global politics and political ideals. At the same time, the fact that so many of the arguments made in these documents are now foregone conclusions, and that the rights and reasons invoked (not to mention the language in which they are invoked) seem so antiquated can make the Federalist…… [Read More]
Although it is now a ripe 65 years old, Leonard D. White's 1948 publication The Federalists remains highly relevant to studies of American history, politics, and governance. The Federalists is a seminal tome, and a benchmark with which to judge and evaluate subsequent writing on the subject of American public administration and its political and historical context. When it was published, reviewers were already calling the book "the first installment of what may already be called the definitive history of American public administration," (Hart, 1948, p. 703). As definitive as it was in 1948, the Federalists has been unsurpassed in the exact subject and content that Leonard White addressed. The language, packaging, and overall feel of the book might give away its age, but its endurance is due to more important matters such as erudite scholarship, reliance on primary sources, and unrelenting thoroughness.
One of the most enduring aspects…… [Read More]
The Hartford Convention was a gathering of Federalist Party delegates from five New England states that met in Hartford, Connecticut, between December 15, 1814, and January 5, 1815. Its members convened to discuss their long-held grievances against the policies of the successive Democratic-
Republican administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
After that, the party never regained a national following. Its beliefs and actions during the War of 1812 helped seal its fate. y 1828 the Federalists became the first American political party to die out because it could not adjust to an increasingly democratic national spirit, especially in the nation's towns and cities. And among most Americans, mainly farmers suspicious of government, its policies of strong federal involvement in the economy kept it un-popular. Inconsistency in its stance toward military action (first undertaking a naval war with France, then treating for peace with that same nation, then actively opposing…… [Read More]
Anti-Federalist & ill of Rights
The Anti-federalist vs. Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. Though the length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the constitution was approved by the first congressional convention to June of 1788 when Virginia was the first to ratify the constitution of the United States. The concepts ideas and standards that were set forth by both the anti-federalists and the federalists as well as other more moderate politicians are expressed throughout the foundational documentation of the United States.
Most notably the ill of Rights, or the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution are a reflective example of the compromises and victories of both sides but this can be seen elsewhere in the foundational documentation as well. Knowing this and being able to demonstrate…… [Read More]
Federalist Papers are important to any analysis of the U.S. Constitution because they provided the philosophical and socio-political justification for the adoption of the Constitution. Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the states were loosely united under the Articles of Confederation. However, Alexander Hamilton and his group of elites did not like that they could not be part of a federal/central government that oversaw and wielded power over the rest of the states. Thus, Hamilton penned many of the Federalist Papers (including Federalist no. 1) in order to combat the ideas expressed by the Anti-Federalists who condemned the Constitution as an attempt to subjugate states' rights.
The Federalist Papers may be read therefore as a series of a letters and arguments meant to sway the reader as to why the U.S. should adopt the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation. It is a body of writing that…… [Read More]
ratification of the U.S. Constitution pushed the nation to extremes: on the one hand were the Federalists, led by men like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison -- men who promoted the idea of a central government (the reasons for which they enumerated at length in their "Federalist" papers); on the other hand were the Anti-Federalists, led by men like obert Yates and George Clinton (Yates being the presumptive author of the pseudonymously penned Anti-Federalist papers under the name of "Brutus"). Each side had its own view, not just of government, but of humanity and the way in which political society should be organized. This paper will present the underlying fundamental perspective of each side and show why I would have sided with the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalist plan to organize the federal government was to make it capable of overriding the individual autonomy and authority of the individual states, which the…… [Read More]
Federalism, Unitary, And Confederation
Federalism: Federalism is a political system of governance in which powers are divided among two levels of government, i.e., a central government and governments based in smaller political units, usually called states, provinces, or territories. In this system of government, the smaller political units surrender some of their political power to the central government, relying on it to act for the common good. (Davidson, Encarta article)
Comparison of Federalist, Unitary and Confederation Governing Structures
Other types of government structure are Unitary and Confederation. In a Unitary system, virtually all powers are held by the central government, although it may delegate some of its powers to local or city governments but such delegation is discretionary and for administrative purposes only. A confederation is similar to a federation but with far less power given to the central government. In confederations, the local governments retain most of the powers…… [Read More]
Hamilton's "Federalist No. 6"
The purpose of Alexander Hamilton's "Federalist No. 6" is to convince the reader of the dangers of an only partially united group of states. Hamilton urges total centralization under the guise of a ruling Constitution to protect the nation from "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious" men, which is what men turn into when they are given independence, according to him. (The irony of Hamilton's argument is that he is arguing for that which the American Revolutionaries just threw off!) His thesis is contained in the opening paragraph: "I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind -- those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions" (Hamilton). His aim is clear: a loose confederation of states, each with its own authority, will not work because men simply cannot get along.…… [Read More]
The Antifederalists wanted to limit government severely in order to limit the effects of such corruption.
Had the Antifederalists won the debate on the constitution, the U.S. may not be the global power it is today. Its borders may not run from ocean to ocean. Its military may not be among the strongest in history. And many of the civil rights laws may not exist. The American system of government would look much different, as would the various states. However, this is not to say that they did not have criticisms of the American system under the federal constitution that have proven true time and again. The Antifederalists have shown themselves to be the fly in the ointment of American political thought. Their solutions may not have done much good. But the evils they pointed to continue to do harm.
Antifederalist No. 17. "FEDERALIST POER ILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT…… [Read More]
" Of course, he expressed opposition to the first method, simply because it defeats the purpose of the American Revolution, which was to gain independence and autonomy as a nation composed of individuals with free will and liberty. The second method, however, is not also feasible, since to grant the interest of one faction would force the government to grant the other's interest, and the resulting state is a government in conflict with different factions who want to govern the people.
These problems will be resolved, according to Madison, through a republic. In the republican form of government, "a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." This form of government will provide an avenue or platform in which all factions, groups, and individuals will be able to voice out their concerns, opinions, and arguments regarding important issues about governance…… [Read More]
Baltimore Advertiser, 18 Mar 1788)
(2) the second class was reported as comprised by "those descriptions of men who are certainly more numerous with us than in any other part of the globe. First, those men who are so wise as to discover that their ancestors and indeed all the rest of mankind were and are fools. We have a vast overproportion of these great men, who, when you tell them that from the earliest period at which mankind devoted their attention to social happiness, it has been their uniform judgment, that a government over governments cannot exist - that is two governments operating on the same individual - assume the smile of confidence, and tell you of two people travelling the same road - of a perfect and precise division of the duties of the individual." (No. 10 -- on the Preservation of Parties, Public Liberty Depends, 18 Mar…… [Read More]
So, who was right? Well, it seems that history has taught us again and again that in certain conditions, humans do express their evil and competitive natures (e.g. fascism, genocide, etc.); but that in other situations, the species can be incredibly giving and benevolent (think of Mother Theresa, people helping people). The complexity is that humans are not all one type or another, but a combination. Most sociologists believe that it is culture and society that form the basis for behavior. For example, the Kung! Bushmen of South Africa have no crime, very little disagreement, and understand they must cooperate for the good of the tribe. owever, if we look at the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Code of ammurabi, we find that the earliest civilizations had to provide structure and that evil nature was as much a part of humanity as goodness. The debate remains -- is the cup…… [Read More]
Anti-Federalists and the Constitution in the Development of Political Parties
The Development of Political Parties
The Constitution and Political Parties
The Changing Ideology of Political Parties
Even before the adoption of the Constitution, political parties were beginning to form. Those who favored the Constitution were called Federalists, and were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Another group, led by Thomas Jefferson, opposed the adoption of the Constitution and was known as Antifederalists. The Antifederalists broke up after the Constitution was ratified, but they set the stage for the development of other political parties, resulting in the two party system that we have today.
The Development of Political Parties
The debate over the Constitution split people into two groups. Those who favored ratification believed that a strong federal government that would dominate the individual states. Hamilton particularly argued that the future of the country depended on the development of a…… [Read More]
A Talk with Thomas Jefferson: Understanding and Explaining the U.S. Government from a Centuries-Old Perspective
TJ: Did it work? Am I here? Did I make it as far as I intended? I told Sally to turn the crank as fast as she could, but I'm not sure my temporal advancement device is functioning properly and that Hemmings girl has a mind of her own, sometimes.
ME: Umm if you mean you built a time machine to take you to the twenty-first century, then yeah, it worked. It's 2012, to be exact. And you are…..
TJ: Thomas Jefferson, Agrarian Democrat, at your service. As you are at my service. And as we are both at service to society at large, and as society at large is at service to use, all equal in our powers, positions, rights, and responsibilities. Just how a democracy is supposed to work.
ME: Technically the…… [Read More]
Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's by the original 13 states. But this new nation would experience a myriad of other changes by the turn of the century. With a new political system, westward expansionism and manifest destiny would guide the new American spirit. Of the most significant transformations on the American landscape of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were the parallel phenomena of the Industrial Revolution and the Second Great Awakening. One an unbridled attempt to expand the material world, the other a fanatical endeavor to revive religious sentiment, these movements were uniquely positioned in time. They would also pull the American psyche in two opposing directions.
The Second Great Awakening was a never-before seen Protestant revival movement that swept through the new nation. Preachers sought converts and converts sought church membership in record numbers. On the other side of the equation,…… [Read More]
In fact, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Slonim notes that the need for a bill of rights was not even a topic of discussion until Virginian delegate George Mason raised the issue just several days before the Convention was scheduled to rise on September 17; Mason suggested that a bill of rights "would give great quiet to the people." Following this assertion, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts moved that the Convention add a bill of rights to the Constitution and Mason seconded his motion to no avail: "The Convention unanimously rejected the proposal by a vote of 10 to 0, with one state absent. Failure to heed Mason's counsel was to plague the Federalists throughout the ratification campaign" (emphasis added).
The first major confrontation concerning the ratification of the Constitution involving the need for a bill of rights occurred in Pennsylvania several weeks after the close of the Constitutional Convention; at…… [Read More]
45, for instance, where he argues that "the State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. ithout the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all." (Rossiter, 287) This is a position which suggests not only that the Federalists felt that significant power had already been entrusted to leaders at the state level, but also that this power is seen primarily as a function of the power of the federal government. Thus, we are given further confirmation that the Constitution was inherently a federal document.
In key segments of the debate such as that shown in the Anti-Federalist Paper No. 17, we can see that those who stood in opposition to the empowerment of federal authority derived from the Constitution were a…… [Read More]
gaining their independence, what were the principal concerns Americans had about constructing a frame of government, and how were these concerns addressed in the structure of the Constitution?
After Americans gained their independence from England the next step was to structure the frame of a new government. In 1787 it was determined that the Articles of Confederation would be tossed out and an entirely new government frame would be constructed which would reflect the new views of the nation. he delegates from each state argued and debated behind closed doors about what the framework of the new government would include (he Constitution of the United States (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution.html).here were several chief points of concern to those who were developing the frame. One of the most important aspects of the debate was how much power each state should be allowed to have. his included debates on how many members each state should…… [Read More]
Federalists, Anti-Federalists and the Constitution
The ratification of the US Constitution was an issue that essentially divided the thirteen colonies in two: on the one hand was the push by the Federalists for ratification. Their argument was that the thirteen colonies needed a centralized, federal government to ensure that the colonies themselves did not get into any trouble (either through in-fighting or through foreign wars). The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, saw the Constitution as a gateway to the exact type of authoritarianism that the Revolutionaries had just opposed in the Revolutionary War. The Anti-Federalists wanted each individual state to mind its own affairs and, at best, for there to be a loose confederation among the states so that no one, single entity could assert itself over them all. This paper will examine the writings of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in light of their historical context of the late…… [Read More]
Thomas Abraham Clark was born into extreme wealth in an urban area, he is an Anti-Federalist. He corresponds with some of the most influential Anti-Federalists, sees centralized government as a curse, and has prospered under the Articles of Confederation.
Because his economic interests are threatened by an unstable currency as well as high tariffs imposed by other states, Josiah Bartlett can be considered to be a Federalist. Federalism would impose a single, stable currency and remove state tariffs and taxes.
Anti-Federalists generally believed in an agrarian republicanism, where the local wealthy landowners would represent the masses in political issues. Because Edward Heyward is a member of the landed aristocracy it would be logical to assume that he is an Anti-Federalist. However, his view of a united effort against the Indians may be an overriding factor as Federalism proposes a united national government. Therefore I am undecided.
As the "voice of…… [Read More]
America went from being a loose union of individual states to being a nation with a central government when the Constitution was ratified. This was more important than the War for Independence, because it dictated the type of government we would have. The Federalists, led by Hamilton, wanted a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists wanted every state to be its own government. The guiding question of this essay is: Should the U.S. have ratified the Constitution or stayed a loose confederation? This paper will show why the U.S. was better off not ratifying the Constitution and remaining a loose confederation of states.
An interesting article at Mises Institute by Gary Galles argued that history has proven that the Anti-Federalists were right in their fears of what would happen should a central government be founded. As Galles notes, the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution because they…… [Read More]
10 was written so that people could see the good in the Constitution and why it was so very important that it be ratified and accepted by all of the states in the U.S.
Federalist Paper No. 10 (Madison, 1787) is an excellent primary source because it has been verified by scholars and historians throughout the ages, because it can be safely attributed to Madison as the author, and because it has so much historic significance for the United States overall. However, understanding that Paper in context is vital, or some of what Madison had to say will be lost. For that reason, a secondary source is needed. In this case, hodenhamel's (1987) Letters of liberty: A documentary history of the U.S. Constitution helps to show how Madison's (1787) Federalist Paper No. 10 was used as a part of something much greater. Taken by itself, the Paper is still significant.…… [Read More]
American Political Philosophy: epublicanism
Within this paper, the general theory of republicanism will be presented. The conceptualization of republicanism discussed within the paper as an American political philosophy will be based on The Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison in 1787. Initially, a brief overview of relevant background information on The Federalist Papers will be provided. This will be followed by a discussion of the primary components of republicanism as set forth within the works of Hamilton, Jay and Madison. A summary and conclusions will then be provided.
Overview of The Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers have been suggested as representing one of the most important writing in American political thought (Yarbrough, 1986). It represents a collection of 85 letters written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison under the pseudonym of Publius. The letters were written to the American public and were initially published in a…… [Read More]
CONFEDEATION & CONSTITUION
Confederation & Constitution
The author of this report is charged with answering several questions relating to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The original Constitution was hard enough to pull off but the Articles of Confederation were also a challenge and were in response to the economic challenges of that day. Different issues and weaknesses that came up were the Western problem, the slave vs. slave states, eastern vs. western states, Sherman's Plan, the Great Compromise and so forth. The debates that raged with the Federalists and the anti-Federalists will be covered as well as how the Bill of ights debate developed. Finally, the relative success of the Bill of ights will be summarized. While no single constitutional document is going to placate all sources and address all problems that could come to pass, the compromises and debates that raged about these two major parts of…… [Read More]
Moreover, they saw religious faith as critical to promoting moral stability in the community (Breslin, 2004). Here we see how federalists adhere in the idea of liberalism by siding with sovereign nation-states where a central type of government is a political strategy. Moreover, Federalists side with the Hobbesian doctrine of liberalism where no religious power should be exercised among people as Anti-Federalists argued that religious faith is crucial is the stability of communities. For Federalists, political rule is the only legitimate rule of power, at least in the socio-political sense.
Berkowitz, P. (1996). Intellectual History of Classical Liberalism. etrieved from www.dailyrepublican.com/liberalhistory.html. onMarch 12.
Breslin, B. (2004). The Communitarian Constitution. etrieved from www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/breslin904.htm. onMarch 12.
Moseley, a. (2006). Political Philosophy. etrieved at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/polphil.htm#SH3aonMarch 12, 2009.
Mount, S. (2007). Constitutional Topic: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists. etrieved at http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html. onMarch 12, 2009.
New World Encyclopedia. (2008). Age of Enlightenment. etrieved from www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Age_of_EnlightenmentonMarch…… [Read More]
My political ideology is based on my reading of the early Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. When I read these papers I realized that the way our country works today was really shaped by events back then during the days of the founding of the country's constitution. I used to be a Constitutionalist and identify with the libertarians led by on Paul, who pushes to uphold the Constitution. But after reading the Anti-Federalist Papers, I realized that the Constitution itself was never really a good thing: it was essentially designed to take power away from the states and place it in the hands of a central government, an idea promoted by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 6, n.d.). The Anti-Federalists viewed this as a violation of the freedom and autonomy they had just won from England in the evolutionary War (Brutus No. 1, 1787). If the…… [Read More]
It separates the various forms of government and does not allow one to become more powerful than another, and it ensures that laws are created fairly, that justice is fair, and that the President does not gain too much power. Essentially, it is the backbone of our Democracy, and that assures our freedom and the public good.
Critics of the Constitution and its support of the public good believe that the laws can promote gridlock in legislation, and that it can make it easier for government leaders to not take responsibility for problems. However, the framers of the Constitution had the citizens in mind, and they formed it to create a Democratic country with the good of the public as a foremost concern.
The Virginia Plan was a plan favored by James Madison, and it had three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislature chose the executive and judicial branches,…… [Read More]
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered a brief but stirring speech while the country was in the process of tearing itself apart in a civil war. During that speech President Lincoln stated a phrase that has helped to capture what democracy means. Lincoln told the audience that had gathered to dedicate a soldier's cemetery that the government that had been formed "of the people, by the people, for the people" would not "perish from the earth." In that phrase, Lincoln summarized what the founding fathers had hoped to capture in documents that shaped the system of government they believed was essential for prosperity and happiness for all mankind. The fact that the United States has remained in existence for more than 200 years does not necessarily mean that the ideals Lincoln spoke of are in existence today. In fact, many would argue that the concepts Lincoln captured in his…… [Read More]
Alien and Sedition Acts
In 1798 the newly established United States of America found itself in a situation where it believed that war with France was imminent. In fact, the "Quasi-War" as it became known, was a situation where the two nations were fighting each other on the seas, but without formal declarations of war. In response to this situation, the Federalist controlled Congress passed a series of four laws which collectively became known as the "Alien and Sedition Acts." While the official purpose of these laws was to safeguard the United States in a time of impending war, they were really meant to weaken those who opposed Federalist policies: the Democratic-epublicans under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson.
The "Alien and Sedition Acts" were four individual acts passed by a Federalist controlled Congress and signed into law by Federalist President John Adams. These acts were the "Naturalization Act," which increased…… [Read More]
Thomas Jefferson Politics
Decisions and Actions
Democratic-epublican Party's Beliefs and Ideals
Federalist Party's Beliefs and Ideals
Initiated the first Barbary War -- Aligned most with the Federalists party because it was a display of national power.
They were terrified of a strong national government.
They were strong believers of a central government
Bought the Louisiana Purchase -- Aligned most with the Federalist party because they believed in expanding national power by expanding their territory and property.
They understood the Constitution as being an essential document to limit the powers of the federal government.
They believed that listening to the citizens would make for a weak government system.
Initiated the Lewis and Clark Expedition -- Aligned most with the Democratic-epublican party because it was in the best interest of the people who would be settling there. It also provided insight into the agricultural possibilities in that part of the nation.
They…… [Read More]
Hamilton's Arguments in Favor of the Debt and the Bank
Jefferson would have no position against witch to argue had not Hamilton made the argument for the national debt so eloquently and so forcefully. Essentially, Hamilton and Jefferson entirely disagreed on the proper course to put the nation on a prosperous track. The greatest issue was whether the multitudinous colonial debts piled up by the individual colonies during and since the war with England should, in the spirit of e pluribus unum, be taken on by the federal government.
Hamilton postulated that the assumption of these colonies' - now states' - debts was essential to make the nation a credible, operating reality, deserving of trust in seeking credit from other countries. Also, Hamilton felt that "monied men" - those wealthy Americans who had made the loans to the state governments and how had in many instances not been paid yet…… [Read More]
Henderson the Rain King
Saul Bellow was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1976 for, among other things, the ability to give values a place side by side with facts in literature, unlike realism. The import of his work was seen as creating awareness that only the right values can give human kind freedom and responsibility, necessary foundations for building of faith in the future and a desire for action. Bellow's work was also recognized for its unique mixture of philosophy, cultural analysis and deep insights into human consciousness (The Nobel Foundation eb site).
Henderson the Rain King is an archetypical Bellow work bearing all the aforesaid characteristics. Henderson, the novel's principal character sets out on a journey ostensibly to Africa but primarily in search of himself. Bellow's portrayal of the unhappy, discontented middle-aged American millionaire has been widely interpreted as a caricature of Americans in the…… [Read More]
S. Congress' prohibition of the practice and the Court's refusal to allow the practice, conflicted with the rights of individuals engaged in such practice. The actions of a religious group which are normally protected under the First Amendment and the laws of states like Utah that might wish to turn a blind eye to the practice were not allowed.
The states claim the social contract has been broken because the U.S. government has infringed upon individuals' liberty to marry more than one person and the states' rights to regulate matters not specifically delineated in the Bill of Rights. However, if this were the case that a state could secede every time the federal government disagreed with a state's definition of individual liberties. Virtually every constitutional dispute in the history of the nation, regarding the Bill of Rights, from abortion, to affirmative action, to gay marriage, to free speech, could justify…… [Read More]
American Constitution: A living, evolving document -- from guaranteeing the right to enslavement in the 18th century to modifications in favor of freedom in the 19th century
Constitution today protects the rights of all in its language, but this was not always the case in its text and spirit. As a political tactic as well as out of personal conviction and experience, Frederick Douglass' characterization of the American Constitution as an anti-slavery document is certainly an admirable piece of rhetoric. Douglass stated that although the America he spoke to at the time of his autobiography My Bondage and My Freedom, was a nation divided between free and slave states and territories, fundamentally America was and "is in its letter and spirit, an anti-slavery instrument, demanding the abolition of slavery as a condition of its own existence" (396)
Slavery, Douglass stated, deprives an individual of his or her dignity, deprives an…… [Read More]
Delegates' top priorities include the following. First, the delegates set out to revise the Articles of Confederation to weaken the power of the state legislatures and increase the powers of the central government. Delegates also sought changes in the ways states were represented in the federal government and introduced the concept of separation of powers to create a system of checks and balances. Debates between federalism and republicanism brewed during the Constitutional Convention, as delegates like Alexander Hamilton favored an exceedingly strong executive branch whereas traditional republicans hoped for term limits for elected officials. Compromise was a must and the Constitution of the United States reflects the confluence of republican and federalist values.
Second, the delegates heatedly debated the question of how to deal with slavery. An abolitionist movement had taken root in Europe and delegates were forced to address concerns about the international and inter-state slave trade. Once again,…… [Read More]
S. House of Representatives from that state. hy set up a presidential election in which voters do not directly elect the president? elch (32) explains that the founders devised this system "…because of their view that the people could not be trusted. The people were seen as an unruly mob threatening stable, orderly government," she continued. Even after Gore successfully petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to have election officials count 9,000 previously uncounted ballots by hand, that may well have given him the victory in Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court trumped the Florida High Court and ultimately gave Florida's 25 electoral votes -- and the presidency -- to Republican candidate Bush (the High Court vote was 5-4: 5 Republican justices to 4 Democrat justices).
Meanwhile, according to professor Mary C. Segers (Rutgers University), the U.S. system of government actually "enhances citizen impact on government" (Segers, 2002, p. 182). The Founders…… [Read More]
Roger Wilkins presents perhaps the most complete picture of the Founding Fathers in his book Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism. It is Wilkins' argument that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and George Mason were not the idyllic seekers-of-justice and equality that we have been taught, but rather they were wealthy slaveholders with political powers that were not always exercised is an "American" way. In light of this newly presented information, our former ideals need to be reevaluated against the ideas of black patriotism, as well as against our thoughts on patriotism in general. How could all men have been created equal, when African-Americans were not considered to be men at all? Indeed, Americans cannot fully come to understand themselves until they are able to understand who the aforementioned individuals were - no matter what the results.
Slaveholders were great politicians in our nation's…… [Read More]
Conservatism in America
Intellectually, it is indeed correct that post-orld ar II can be divided into two periods of conservatism: the period which emerged directly after the war (1945-1990) and the period from 1990 onwards. Traditionally as Ball explained, conservatism in America were opposed to rapid development and industrialization in the early 20th century: "From their point-of-view, this new mass society posed the same threat that democracy had always posed -- the threat that the masses would throw society first into chaos and then in despotism. In arguments similar to those of Plato, Aristotle, and more recently Alexis de Tocqueville, traditional conservatives maintained that the common people were too weak and too ignorant to take charge of government" (Ball, 108). Essentially, this meant that conservatism in the twentieth century revolved around the notion of self-restraint and a core belief pervades that only a small majority are suitable to govern, while…… [Read More]
Six Questions & Discussion on American Politics
During the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, two primary plans were forwarded that shaped the development and discussion at the convention that would forever impact the shape of American politics. The first plan, the Virginia Plan, introduced by Governor Randolph, was an effort to simply revise the existing Articles of Confederation. It was characterized by three major points: the structural exclusion of states from elections and representation at the national level, reductions of powers to individual states, and the abandonment of the some national features of republicanism like institutional separation of powers. The Virginia Plan was countered by two alternative plans, and a division at the Convention: the New Jersey Plan that believed the Virginia Plan went too far in affording power to the national government, and the Hamilton Plan that argued the Virginia Plan didn't go far enough (Lloyd).…… [Read More]
Paine explains: "A government of our own is our natural right: and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own..."
His concept of independence as a nation-state is no different from people's common notion of independence of the individual as a human being's natural right. Each American has the natural right to be free; and so, upon the creation of a nation in America, the country itself attains 'collective independence.' Paine speaks of independence in the purest and natural sense, where every individual shall actively participate in the process of nation-building of a newly-independent America.
While Madison shares Paine's argument that independence should be given to America, his was an altogether different kind of independence. He firmly believes that the American nation should have representative or a "minority" who…… [Read More]
Factions: Help or Hindrance
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, aided by John Jay, were responsible for writing eighty-five anonymous essays for the New York Journal in 1787 and 1788. These articles were known as The Federalist Papers, and they were intended to persuade people into ratifying the proposed Constitution. In The Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison responded to critics who had argued that the United States was too large, and had too many groups, or "factions," to be ruled democratically by a single government. Madison acknowledged the importance of factions in the opening paragraph, stating that, "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction" (Rossiter, 1961). In prescribing how to rule and control the effects of factions, Madison detailed their relationships with other important concepts, such as liberty and property,…… [Read More]
Presidential and Congressional Powers
In the simplest of terms, the differences in powers between Congress and the President is that Congress makes laws and the President enforces them. But, that description does a great injustice to the complexities of the roles of each. Congress is granted "all legislative powers" by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Those powers include the making of laws, coining money, declaring war, regulating interstate and foreign commerce, and maintaining the military. The powers of the President (Executive Branch) are outlined in Article II of the Constitution. They include the power of appointment and removal, the creation of executive orders, limited legislative powers, veto power, pardoning power, power to make treaties, and military powers separate from those of Congress. Both sets of powers, in conjunction with the Judicial Branch, form a balance of powers within the Federal Government. It is the purpose of this paper…… [Read More]
government that governs least the best sort of government for a freedom-Loving nation to have.
Does the Government that Governs Least Govern the Best?: A Closer Look
That government is best which governs least." This statement has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though there is no actual evidence of the statement in any of his extant writings. Whether Jefferson originally made this famous saying or not is inconsequential. The fact is, this saying has been repeated countless times over the past two centuries by proponents of democracy, states' rights, civil liberties, and all sorts of other precepts upon which our nation was supposedly founded. Those who believe that a true freedom-loving democracy consists of a government that stays out of the business of its citizens as much as possible are many and loud. There are many historically famous people who can be counted among the ranks of those who believe…… [Read More]
This is reflected in the document where Jefferson expressly outlines the idea that all men have certain rights and are responsible for their own paths in life (Pilon, 2000). It is a product of its own era, and liberalism was the philosophy that drove much of the political actions in the early United States.
The same can be said of The Federalist. These were a collection of essays regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. They are also set upon the basic premise that all people are created equal, and that humans have certain unalienable rights that a nation or state needs to respect and honor (Hamilton, et al., 2003). The men who wrote the essays were certainly trying to create a good regime through their own beliefs and values. Their ideas, which later led to the founding of a nation, are key in understanding what they believed a good…… [Read More]