Arguments Against The Articles Of Confederation

After the American Revolutionary War, many Americans were opposed to the idea of a strong central government. They saw the idea of a strong centralized government as a gateway back into the familiar tyrannical government and abuse of power that they had just fought so hard to free themselves of. The idea of creating a new Constitution was unnecessary to some because the Articles of Confederation were already in place. The non-supporters of the newly proposed Constitution called themselves “Anti- Federalist.” Naturally, many of the supporters of the new Constitution felt that it was very much needed and they felt as if the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough to functionally run the government. The “federalists,” or supporters of the proposed Constitution, wanted to

The papers that they would write detailed how the Constitution would provide “a remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government” and to “secure the public good and private rights” (Fed #10) arguing over concepts that they felt were key to providing this security. One of their main objections against the Articles of Confederation was that the “Separation of Powers” maintained in the Articles was not an effective way to protect the public against potential abuses. The Federalist argues that each department should have a will of its own and have as little as possible to do with the appointment of members of the other branches; that each department should have enough power to carry out its mission an them limit its power so that it cannot become to tyrannical. The Federalist, argues that payments attached to the offices of each branch should be as independent as possible and that a system of checks and balances were necessary to thwart encroachments by other