NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... e Federalist papers were signed with the name "Publius", so know one would know the identity of the writer's. In the Federalist papers Madison, Jay, and Hamilton lay it right out on the table. In the first document written by Hamilton, the first line is "After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America" (web) In saying this Hamilton means that the people of the United States have to decide on the Constitution, based on what was Hamilton's influence in the Federalist papers.
Throughout the papers Hamilton keeps trying to reiterate that if we do not ratify the Constitution we will be forced to return to a Confederate form of government which didn't work under the Articles of Confederation. What he was trying to do was to beam his propaganda into the readers mind without being offensive. Hamilton played into the readers sense of patriotism. He used phrases such as "my fellow citizens", "my countrymen", and "the people of America", (web) to show unity between all the people of the United States. At that time in United States History the American Revolution was still fresh on the minds of the citizens, Hamilton was trying to persuade them by reminding them of that. There was a lot of historical reference and philosophy in the Federalist paper's, in paper number two they even quoted Shakespeare, saying "FAREWELL!
A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS", from Shakespeare's poem "Farewell! A Long Farewell... " John Jay actually took a line from a poem about the rise and fall of mankind and turned it into political propaganda. Some other historical references include the American Revolution, the state of Genoa offending Louis XIV, Queen Anne, Henry VIII, the Peloponnesian War, the French Revolution, and Charlemagne. (web) Jay, Hamilton, and Madison were trying to show what they thought would happen to us without the Constitution. References were made in the documents to many European philosophers such as John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Thomas Hobbes The authors also try to prove how great the Constitution was by continuously comparing it to the Articles of Confederation and pointing out the problems of the Articles of Confederation such as no power to stop the self interests of the states from tearing the union apart because the Articles provided no legal or political means to stop it.
States quarreled with one another over land claims, commerce regulations, and frequently erected taxes against neighboring states. They also point out how under the Articles of Confederation the government had no power to produce a militia, and then spend many documents proving how under the Constitution it was possible. In opposition to the Federalist papers were the anti-Federalist papers. This was a cry by the anti-Federalists that the Constitution was not right, and opposing reasons why it should not be ratified. Some of the writers included Patrick Henry, James Winthrop, Robert Yates, George Clinton and John Dewitt. Instead of just being under one name, the anti-Federalist papers have many names and many writers, which share a wider range of views.
Some of the best points in the anti-Federalist papers came from the authors known as "Brutus", and "A Federal Farmer" The author behind "Brutus" was Robert Yates, and no one was sure who "A Federal Farmer" was. One of the key points these two made was about the "necessary and proper clause", this clause in the Constitution gave "Congress the power to make laws which were necessary to execute all powers vested by the Constitution. " (web) They argued that the Constitution only had the power to do what it states it can, and that nothing should be assumed by the government. This means that the government should not use the necessary and proper clause as "a blanket grant of power" (web), or in other words the government should not interpret the necessary and proper clause to mean they have the power to act on something if it was not in the Constitution saying they can't. In opposition to this the Federalists argued that the Constitution could not cover everything the government needs to do, so there were "implied powers" This argument lasted a long time and is still debated today. The anti-Federalists were right to argue about this because even today many feel the government is using the necessary and proper clause to their own advantage. Patrick Henry even saw the Constitution as a Revolutionary document much like the our separation from Britain, he said "I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous.
Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. " (web) He believed that the Constitution was a document to take power away from the people of the United States, and give more power to the rich, much like the United States was ruled under Britain. Patrick Henry said this because at that time the Constitution did not guarantee the natural rights of the people, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Despite the fact the Federalists and the anti-Federalists had opposing views about the Constitution, both were headed for a common goal. This goal was forming a government that could run the country. This was why the anti-Federalists and Federalists came to terms and formed the Bill of Rights, for the country. The Bill of Rights were the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
This was a document demanded by the anti-Federalists, in states like New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island where the battle for ratification was not clear. In these states the voting was a lot closer than in the states that first decided to ratify. Many anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, "as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. " (web) The British had just ended their control with the end of the Revolution, and a tyranny wasn't what many United States citizens were looking for. Without the Bill of Rights it was like they were being controlled as a tyranny. The Bill of Rights includes freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to deny refuge to soldiers, the right to privacy from search, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to representation and to a speedy trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, the right to always have rights, and the right for states to rule on things not mentioned in the Constitution. That was a lot of power given back to the people.
If the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights, the central government could get away with all these things. All in all, the anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the Constitution. They had opposing views compared to the Federalists, they wrote the anti-Federalist papers in opposition of the Federalist papers and felt a Bill of Rights was necessary in the Constitution. The Federalists were not as much writing the Constitution for the country as much as they were writing it for themselves and without the Bill of Rights the government would have been more like a Tyranny than a Republic. Thomas Jefferson best sums this up when he said ""I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. " (web)
Free research essays on topics related to: people of the united states, federalist papers, articles of confederation, anti federalists, bill of rights
Research essay sample on Bill Of Rights Articles Of Confederation
