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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.
The Federalist Papers were essays written in 1787 by Alexander Hamilton who collaborated with James Madison and John Jay. The Federalist Papers defended the newly drafted constitution and explained how the constitution was a upgrade from the Articles of confederation. These papers were originally published using the pen name Publius in the Newspaper before the names of the writers were released. These papers were written to the people of New York to sway them in ratifying the Constitution. Federalist Paper number ten explains how the violence and damage that happens to be caused by factions and how the constitution could fix that.
From 1787-1788 there was a group of essays published, urging ratification for the US Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, these collection of 85 writings were called the Federalist Papers. These papers would help to lead passage to the ratification of the US Constitution. Article III of the US Constitution established the Federal Judiciary and there should be one court that reigns all which is the Supreme Court. However, in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argues that the Judiciary is the least of the three branches of government and would not be needed to be taken seriously.
Ratifying the Constitution Ratifying the Constitution has saved our country from being like England and from not falling apart. Before the constitution we had the articles and those weren’t working out at the time and we weren’t able to fight against rebellions and or against other countries when. We could act faster with the Constitution and we had a checks and balance system and also we had a checks and balances system. We could have acted faster with the constitution instead of wanting around for all states to agree on doing something.
The controversies over the ratification of the Constitution was taxation, too much power to the President, trading, and the lack of Bill of Rights. There were people who agreed to ratify the Constitution the way it is, which were called federalists. Federalists reasoned that Americans should ratify the Constitution because Americans are allowed to ask for additional amendments after they ratify the Constitution. The ability to be able to request additional amendments after supported the Federalist’s point of view because the Anti-federalists may ask for further amendments after which could happen after they ratify the Constitution.
