Federalist No.16 APPARTS AUTHOR: Alexander Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and chief of staff to George Washington. He was the founder of the financial system and the first American political party. PLACE AND TIME: December 4, 1787. During this time the failures of the Articles of Confederation were being assessed. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE: The Articles of Confederation were a major failure as a constitution.
Jefferson states his disagreements with James Madison when he says, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government.” (Document A). As the years went on James Madison and Thomas Jefferson started to see eye to eye. Jefferson and the Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the authority of the federal government should be based on a strict constitution. Americans should follow every rule stated in the constitution and to obey them. Jefferson stated that, “ I consider the government of the United States as interdicted the constitution.” (Document B).
The United States Constitution was the first constitution in the world. It was play an important of American history, marked America became a democracy country. Many events prompted Congress to approve the Constitution. Although America had defeat Great British and won the Revolutionary War, the United States government was weak. The 13 colonies followed the Articles of Confederation, but every state had its laws, so the government had not enough power to solve the problem between each states.
Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies. He says that the writers and supporters of the Constitution were Federalists and they believed that the Constitution was a fulfillment. Which basically means, that those Federalists didn’t see anything wrong with the Constitution. Antifederalists said the Constitution was a denial of the principles of 1776. They were saying that the Constitution was didn’t honor the liberty nor the self-government.
Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation to those of the Constitution. Which document did a better job at protecting liberties? Which document did a better job at running a government? Explain your answer with specific examples The Articles of Confederation was drafted in 1777, but was not ratified by all the states until March 1st, 1781. At the time, the states feared a strong central government, for this reason, the Continental Congress tried to give the states as much independence as possible.
The previous Constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. The Anti-Federalists worried that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and that there was no Bill of Rights. (16) Patrick Henry argues for a Bill of Rights, “ the necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before… Without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind than ever the world saw a government that was abandoned all its powers the power of taxation, the sword, and the purse.”(17) George Clinton argues that a republican style of government cannot ensure the rights of the people and will in turn; make the country into a monarchy. “ A consolidated republican form of government… divided against
How did the Constitution Guard against Tyranny? Nolen Michael Ms. McKee U.S. History Nov.27, 2012 Abstract In the summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing twelve of the thirteen states met in Philadelphia to fix the national government. The problem was that the existing government, under the Articles of Confederation, just wasn’t doing the job. It was too weak. The challenge was to create a strong central government without letting any one person, or group of people, get too much power.
When written, the United States Constitution did not provide for the development of a two-party system. Yet we, as the rebellious Americans that we are, managed to find a way around the Constitution. The two parties that emerged during the 1790s were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, so aptly named, favored a strong centralized government as outlined in the Constitution. The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force.
Federalists justified the absence of a declaration of rights by arguing that the Constitution established a federal system with specific powers delegated to the national government and other powers reserved to the states. Massachusetts approved the Constitution in February, 1788, with a call for “certain amendments and alterations” to lessen “the fears and quiet the apprehension of many of the good people of the commonwealth.” Ratification debates in New York and Virginia showed the degree of opposition and ultimately lead to a promise of the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. James Madison introduced a series of amendments to the Constitution in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Federalists opposed on the same grounds as they argued in the ratification debates and further argued that it was inappropriate to amend the Constitution at this time. Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away.
The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were influential in spurring the American people on to the idea of a stronger central government. The major Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, who vehemently opposed a new Constitution being ratified until the Bill of Rights was introduced. All in all the Anti-Federalist argument was weakly put together and failed to convince the public to stick with a revised version of the Articles of Confederation. All of these various factors contributed to the new Constitution because of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation the strengths of the new Constitution and the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists debate. Though we no longer go by the Articles of Confederation in today’s government this essay shows the many ways it was a major building block in today’s