Sunday, September 4, 2011

Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers


                Each of these two papers addresses the need for a centralized form of government, namely the Constitution of the United States. The Federalists were in support of ratifying the Constitution, whereas the Anti-Federalists were against ratification.
                The Anti-Federalist papers begin by involving the reader, stating that the matter is imminent because it affects not only the reader and his generation, but future generations as well. The author goes on to say that if ratifying the Constitution is the right thing to do, a “lasting foundation for millions…” will be established. However, if ratifying the Constitution is the wrong thing to do, there will be no future. This harsh decision is based on the author’s fear that ratifying the Constitution will ultimately revert the U.S. to a monarchy, something it tried to get away from in England. One stipulation of the Constitution is to establish a President. The author fears that having one person in charge will make him power-hungry resulting in tyranny. The author also fears that by splitting the government into three parties (legislative, judicial, and executive), one will eventually overthrow the others and have all of the power. By giving the government power over state government, the author also fears that state government’s authority will be undermined and nullified. The author’s main argument against the establishment of a republic in the United States is that it is too big. People cannot consult with one another about important matters, the leader will become consumed with power, and, as seen in history with the Romans, the republic will ultimately fail.
                The Federalist papers provide a counter-argument to the Anti-Federalist papers. James Madison is the author, and he states that dividing the government into three branches will work because a system of checks and balances will be established which will allow each branch the ability to keep another in line. Madison also states that the people in positions of power (Congress members, etc.) should not be allowed to appoint other authoritative figures, avoiding the establishment of an heirs and lineage like in a monarchy. In my opinion, Madison’s argument for the need of a government is genius. Madison basically states that humans are inherently evil, power-hungry creatures, and, for those reasons, need a government in order to keep them on the right path. If they were not so power-hungry, government would not be needed. I found myself not understanding the last portion of paper very well, particularly the second of his views. I think I understood in the first viewpoint in that Madison proposed the idea of Democrats and Republicans in order to help avoid the “aristocratic tyranny.” The second viewpoint, however, was a little incomprehensible to me. Basically what I understood from it was that he was trying to establish equality among the different classes of citizens. For instance, he didn’t want the rich to rule over the poor. Could this be like when the only people allowed to vote were wealthy white men, which didn’t truly reflect the views of Americans?

1 comment:

  1. Your last question would be a great point of discussion. See if you can bring this up in our later readings.

    ReplyDelete