The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. Modern day use the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution to look at the intentions of the framers and ratifies. This has been used on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs. However, there has been issues regarding the interpretation of the articles. That it is a lot of opinion that comes from the authors.
In the years 1787 and 1788 right after the Constitutional Convention, many people argued over the context of the constitution. The ratification started when the Congress turned the Constitution over to the state legislatures. Because most of the framers had already decided to discard the Articles of Confederation when drafting the Constitution, the lack of people following the articles made the legislatures feel that an unanimous vote was unnecessary. The delegates agreed that approval from only 9 of the 13 states would be adequate to ratify the United States Constitution. However, the process to ratifying the constitution was difficult including groups of people and regions who supported or opposed the ratification.
The Federalist papers were the outcome of the fall of the articles of confederation. John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the main contributors to the 85 letters written to newspapers between 1787 and 1788. The purpose of all the letters, known as the Federalist papers was to persuade all of the colonies to ratify the new constitution. The federalist papers talk about many things, but mainly how the new constitution would create a strong central government and would preserve the union. Also, the anti federalists tried to publish anonymous articles that basically went against everything the federalists had to say.
The United States Constitution was created to define the powers and limitations of the government. It replaced the Articles of the Confederation, and was ratified by all 13 states in 1787 (American Government, n.d.). The ratification of the Constitution was not without opposition, and the government was split into two groups: federalists, and anti-federalists. The federalist group believed that a national governing body, ruled by the elite class was necessary. Antifederalists, on the other hand, believed that state governments should have more say, and that the government should be run by ordinary people (American Government, n.d.).
The Constitution was scribed subsequent to the delegation that occurred at the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This document was intended to be an improvement of the Articles of Confederation, in which the ending result was an entirely new government called the republic. The idea of institutionalizing a constitution created differences between the participants of the meeting. Those who opposed the idea of a new government and the constitution were called the Antifederalists and those who supported the ratification of the Constitution were federalists, which is the idea of federalism vs. state’s rights. The Constitution failed to protect the rights of the civilians despite Federalists attempts to persuade individuals
When political leaders met in Philadelphia to figure out how they could strengthen the Articles of Confederation they soon realized that they needed to replace the entire thing with the US Constitution. Those that did not support the constitution were became known as the anti-federalist and those that supported it were known as the Federalists. The federalist wrote the Federalists Papers that were published in newspapers trying to gain support for the constitution. Two states, Massachusetts and South Carolina wrote up a resolution list to ratify the Constitution in order to get them to support it. Both states wanted “all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution to be reserved to the several States to be by them exercised” (Avalon Project, 1788).
Long have the arguments on whether or not to ratify the Constitution been going on and it is most certainly right to agree. The Framers decided to give more power to the federal government than to the people for an abundant amount of reasons. The Constitution is completely necessary because there are so many problems with the old system: the Articles of Confederation and we need trained people to do important work for the country. The Anti-Federalists are clearly incorrect for bountiful reasons. There are just so many ways that the Articles of Confederation wasn’t working out for us, so we must move on with our plans for the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
Since they were all for the new constitution, they wanted to go ahead and make it. But the Anti-federalists didn’t want this. They were hesitant on this new government. So, that is why the Federalist papers were created. These were a series of 85 essays that tried to convince Anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution.
This is the place the battle to approve the constitution started. The Anti-Federalists had numerous focal contentions against the selection of the Constitution. The advocates, the Federalist proposed a superior contention for shielding the approval of the new Constitution which made them win. The Anti-Federalist were those men who contradicted the endorsement of the Constitution in 1789.
This led the Anti-federalists to argue that the federal government should be limited to issues of national defense and interstate commerce and all other powers to the state. The Anti-federalists believed this plan granted the national government undue economic power over the states. Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. They saw no sense in throwing out the existing government.
The Federalists of the convention were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the national government must be strong in order to function and to control uncooperative states, which could protect the rights of the people. They also believed that the Constitution and state government protected individual freedoms. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government, particularly a standing army. They believed it threatened state power along with the rights of the common people.
After writing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the journey to ratification began; however, not all states were eager to ratify it due to fear of a strong central government. In order to better convince each state to ratify the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation, the Bill of Rights was added as a barrier against the tyranny of a strong central government. The First Amendment includes protection of many civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, petition, religion, and the press. The Founding Fathers included the right of freedom of the press so as to ensure the spread of intellectual, and typically liberal, ideas among the citizens, just as was done in order to inspire the revolution.
The debate between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists significantly impacted the ratification of the Constitution. In the 1780’s, there were two opposing groups: the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were concerned about the potential for a strong central government and the lack of individual rights. On the other hand, Federalists believed in a strong federal government to maintain order and protect the nation. Both these arguments and discussions led to the addition of the Bill of Rights, which addressed the Anti-Federalists' concerns.
Following the end of the American Revolution marked a new set of problems for the United States. As impending war debts were threatening to crush the new nation, America knew they needed to address the flaws of the Articles of Confederation through a Constitutional Convention. The United States Constitution of 1787 was created in hopes of developing a stronger and more effective governing body while still upholding America’s virtues of freedom. Unfortunately, with change, comes opposition, and many people feared that the Constitution would be oppressive and undermine the autonomy of the individual states through its strong central government. Because of this, the issues that sparked the greatest controversies during the ratification of the
