Federalists vs Anti-Federalists Readings

Who were the federalists?

They supported the constitution, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the more popular ones (Wrote the federalist papers), they want to establish a strong republic

What was the point of the federalist papers?

To convince people to adopt the constitution, and explores the Constitution's meaning

What was Federalist No. 10 about overall?

Madison explores on how the Constitution combats the problem of faction (A small organized group within a larger one shared by a common interest that opposes the larger group)

When were the anti-federalists and federalists formed?

When the constitution was drafted by the constitutional convention in mid 1787, there were people who were against/for the ratification of it

What does Madison believe a well constructed union should do?

Needs to control the violence of a faction, which a constitutional republic can do

What does Madison state is the issue with the government at the moment?

He recognizes there is a problem of faction, and majority rule overrunning the minorities/the rights of the minorities

How does Madison define a faction as?

A group of citizens of any size who have a special interest that might not be in the best interest of other citizens

How does Madison feel about State constitutions?

That they have improved on those that came before them, but still have problems, and are unstable due to them valuing factional interests over the common good

What does Madison think factions are driven by?

Passion and self interest, not reason and the common good

How does Madison think you can control factions?

You can either remove the causes of the factions, or find a way to control different views (controls the effects of a faction)

How does Madison think you can prevent the formation of a faction?

Take away people's freedom (liberty is necessary for factions to survive), or force everyone to have the same passions and beliefs

How does Madison feel about taking away people's freedom to get rid of factions?

Freedom is too great of a sacrifice to make in order to stop the formation of factions

How does Madison feel about forcing everyone to have the same ideology to get rid of factions?

Giving everyone the same opinions, passions, and interests is not possible in a free and diverse republic, people have natural division (many rooted in the division of property, which the govt has duties in protecting and balancing its regulations) and it is necessary for the survival of society

What does Madison say govt is a reflection of?

Human Nature

Does Madison believe people should be the judges in their own cause?

No, their self interest biases their judgment and corrupts fairness, relating to legislators often making laws affecting their own class or groups interests and not the public good

What does the biases of legislatures show about majority rule in small republic/democracies ?

The more powerful/numerous group wins even if its unjust, majority factions pass laws that benefit themselves, and this is why a stronger republican govt is needed to stop them from being unfair. This was common under the AOC, since the nation wasnt really united and it was easy for factions to develop in a small populated state with little diversity, resulting in them easily taking over the state govt.

How does Madison think these clashing interests can be adjusted to serve the public good?

Enlightened statesmen (great leaders) who are only concerned with injustice and the public good, but we wont always have them

How does Madison believe we can solve the issue on factions?

We can't eliminate its causes, but we can figure out how to control them and their effects

How does Madison think we can solve the issue on minority factions?

We can vote abusive minority factions out of power through republican principles, but this disregards majority factions abusing the minority, and we should focus on finding a solution to this problem

What two forms of government does Madison think will control the effects of factions?

Democracy and Republic

Why would a pure democracy be favored?

If would be best for each person to speak and vote for themselves

Why can't a pure democracy control a majority faction?

Noting limits the majority from harming minority rights, while everyone may have equal political power this doesnt stop people's interests causing conflict. If a majority shares the same interest, they can team up and dominate passing unfair laws

How does Madison think we can address the problem of a faction?

We should use a representative govt, we need to elect representatives. Republic is superior to a pure democracy

What does Madison say first about building a republic/can deal with majority factions more effectively?

It promotes a process of deliberation led by virtuous leaders, which improves popular opinion and helps to ensure we have a govt that serves the common good, rather than the passion of people in powerful factions. We should have a LARGE republic not a small one to prevent the republic becoming a faction, and it can represent a larger number of citizens and extend over larger territory, and there is a large number of quality candidates

What is the major advantage of having Republics represent larger number of citizens?

Elected representatives can refine and enlarge the public view through acting as a filter between people's passions and actually laws. Elected representatives may better reflect the public good far better than direct pronouncements of the people

What might be a flaw to having representatives reflect the public voice?

The representatives may not be acquainted well with local circumstances or minority interests

Despite these disadvantages in having a large republic, what does Madison still prefer?

Extensive republics, it is the best safeguard in protecting the public interest

What are the three reasons given by Madison explaining why a large republic is good?

Larger number of quality candidates, offers better opinions for electing representatives of fit character since there will be more to choose from, and it is less likely for unworthy candidates to become elected

Why there must be a balance in the number of electors according to Madison?

Too many may result in the representatives being too little acquainted with their particular interests, and too few would result in the representative being to attached to their interests and not objectively view national ones

Why does Madison believe that the federal constitution offers a balance between too many/too few representatives?

The Constitution, provides two distinct legislatures, a national legislature to decide national interests, and state legislatures for local and particular interests

How does Madison support that large (number of electors) and extensive (territory) republics best control factions?

Extended republics encompass a great variety of parties/factions and interests, less probable that a factious majority can form/act

What three reasons does Madison give to prove that large republics are better than small ones?

Representatives are more likely to be enlightened and virtuous and less likely to be tainted by local prejudice and justices, its more secure against oppression from a factious party since there is a greater number of parties and interests it covers, and because of its size prevents the action of majority factions

What other two arguments to Madison make for large republics?

Factious leaders or religious sects may dominate a particular region, but wont dominate an entire nation, and improper or unjust projects are less likely to be influential in the entirety of the nation

What tragic irony did Warren saw in the Constitution?

The same population that risked their lives to escape tyranny, appeared willing to settle for the same at home. Warren reminds citizens of the republican ideals they clung onto and the imperial governance they suffered through

What did the anti-federalists believe?

That the constitution was subverting the achievements of the Revolution and put too much power in the central govt

What prompted Mary Otis Warren to write this?

The debate in Massa. about the ratification of the constitution, prompted Warren who was apart of a family of revolutionary leader tracing back to the mayflower, to publish her observations on the constitution

How does Warren introduce her paper?

She states that because she loves this country so much and remembers how hard they worked to separate from the British, she cannot watch them silently accept the Constitution, she wants them to turn back to the liberties they risk losing. She believes that the rights that were fought so diligently by American soldiers are at risk of being taken away by the constitution

What does Warren remind the American readers?

The sacrifice that soldiers have gone through for America's freedom, and every uncorrupted patriots still wants to actively preserve this freedom

What does Warren accuse the Constitution framers of being?

Conspirators, replacing freedom with hidden agenda and mentions that they are undermining the AOC and spirit of independence for power-hungry motives, replacing liberty with tyrant

What does Warren warn American readers of happening if America has the Constitution ratifies?

That America is working towards the same corruption that destroyed other republics (Rome and Greece)

What does Warren think a stronger central govt will lead to?

Your trading self-rule for domination, they will crown another king

What does Warren mean by the Constitution falling into an "uncontrolled despotism"?

That the constitution will end America up in a dictatorship with absolute unchecked power, constitution gives not enough limited and clear power to the govt

How does Warren describe how true patriots are feeling rn?

That they are filled with anxiety as they see the deceptive tricks being used by the supporters of the constitution to disguise their push towards tyranny

What does Warren say is happening to freedom and equality?

Its being twisted, and people are being blinded by the federalists who are defending tyranny. She says the constitution will bring them back to the tyranny they just escaped from

Does Warren believe that the Constitution will follow a republican govt?

NO, she thinks the constitution is built on monarchical principles and a rule by the rich and well born mentality. Instead, men defend a string govt to to restore the power of the elites and not protect liberty

Why does Warren refer to the constitution as a "many headed monster"?

It combines features of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, but in a confusing mix that could turn tyrannical

What type of language does Warren claim the elites are using?

Language of necessity, claiming we need a stronger govt to have American sacrifice their freedom

How does Warren feel about the representation system of the Constitution?

She says the the principle of citizens electing representatives who remain accountable through frequent regular elections is violated. Representation is limited and distant and the term of office are too long, leading to the abuse of power and eroded freedom

What does Warren claim that the constitution doesn't protect?

Speech and freedom of press, stating that despotism begins off gently and then once power is concentrated your basic liberties are taken away

How does Warren describe the Judicial branch's power in the Constitution?

Its too broad and undefined, meaning there is no full understanding as to how far their powers go, chance it could slowly grow into an unelected and unaccountable authority

What does Warren argues are too connected/blended?

President and Congress, the powers are too blended together so its hard to say who is checking who, violating the SoP, which could lead to corruption

What is Warren alarmed by?

The abolition of trial by jury in civil cases, which could lead to Americans facing unchecked govt prosecution, leading to people being punished without a fair process

What does Warren argue against concerning the military?

A standing army, with the belief that a permanent army under federal control will serve the tyranny and not defense

what does Warren think will happen to state sovereignty under the Constitution?

The Constitution wont protect it, and will absorb states under federal domination, as they will take control over all revenue and state matters, leaving the states weak, violating the balance of power

Why is Warren against the Congress being able to make its own salaries and raise taxes?

She believes its an open door for greed, and that taxes and public spending will skyrocket

Why is Warren against there being no requirement for rotation in office (no term limits)?

It allows leaders to stay in power indefinitely, offices will become life long positions just like a monarchy, the same people will be in charge forever while citizens lose their voice

How does Warren feel about the federal court system?

She believes it is too powerful and distant from the people, that the Constitution lets federal court drag people far from home and defend themselves at the mercy of distant judges

What does Warren say is not nearly enough?

One representative per 30,000, it does not allow citizens to have frequent contact with its representatives, meaning the govt is too large for the citizens to have an influence

Who does Warren think the Constitution gives too much power to?

The wealthy, in some states the electoral system concentrates power among a small wealthy elite, leading to a clique of elites that can control the presidency and nation

What does Warren argue is an "aristocracy in disguise"?

That Senates can serve six-year terms, and believes that the longer someone stays in office, the more power they gain. The senate will forget about the people, the people will forget about the senate, evolving into a privileged elite ruling class

What does Warren wanted included in the Constitution?

A Bill of Rights, believing that without the Constitution clearly stating our protections, there is nothing to stop the govt from violating our liberties

Why is Warren against a single centralized govt?

She thinks its impossible to fairly govern such a a large area, and that representation will be distant and unfair

How does Warren feel about the ratification process?

She does not like that only nine states need to ratify it for it to be official, believing that it will lead to the states being torn apart and blood shed