Should there be a federal government?
many anti-federalists studied the examples of republics in ancient greece and rome, as well as recent swiss states, and concluded that to succeed a republic must remain small. in the tenth of the eighty-five federalist essays, james madison argued that a group of citizens, or a faction, might make demands that threaten the rights of citizens in general, but that in a large republic, there would be so many factions with different interests, that no one group could do real damage to the nation.
the need for a constitution
james madison considered the “father of the constitution,” worked tirelessly to ensure the document’s ratification. he was a chief author of the federalist papers, essays that explained to the public the political theory and workings of the proposed government. the young united states had just fought a terrible war to gain independence from a monarch. anti-federalists feared that the constitution was a path back to the same kind of tyrannical monarchy. those in favor of the new constitution argued that the lack of an executive under the articles of confederation had made that government weak and ineffective. a strong executive, with limits on power, would make the nation strong. alexander hamilton authored two-thirds of the federalist papers, which argued that the new constitution, through its system of checks and balances and other safeguards, would protect people’s liberty and uphold the republican ideals of the revolution. the constitution borrowed from the enlightenment ideas of baron de montesquieu, and divided government power into three branches, each of which could check the power of the other two, thus preventing any one person or group from having absolute power.
the need for a bill of rights
while some federalists believed a bill of rights would limit the rights of the people to only those rights it listed, george mason, primary author of virginia’s bill of rights, refused to sign the constitution without a bill of rights. without mason’s arguments, we might not have the bill of rights we cherish today. many anti-federalists worried that a strong central government would impose tyranny on the people of the country. edmund randolph, the governor of virginia during the ratification debate, to convince anti-federalists in the state that with the promise of a bill of rights, they should vote to ratify.
founding fathers (various)
john jay wrote five of the eighty-five federalist papers. collected as the federalist, they are considered a masterful analysis of the constitution and political principles on which it is based. george washington’s support of the constitution proved pivotal in the ratification debate. richard henry lee, a hero of the american revolution, saw dangers in the proposed constitution. patrick henry argued that the document “squinted toward monarchy.”
1. what did many anti-federalist conclude after they studied ancient greek and roman republics? (answer in your own words, do not copy and paste your answer)
2. james madison argued in favor of a large republic. what was his main thesis of that argument? (answer in your own words, do not copy and paste your answer)
3. what did anti-federalist fear the constitution was a path back to?
4. what did federalist argue was needed for a strong government, which was lacking in the articles of confederation?
5. what did alexander hamilton argue would protect people’s liberty and uphold the republican ideals of the revolution?
6. what did the constitution borrow from the enlightenment ideas of baron de montesquieu?
7. why did george mason refuse to sign the constitution?
8. what did edmund randolph promise anti-federalists to get them to ratify the constitution?
9. who’s support of the constitution was pivotal in the ratification debate?
10. what did patrick henry argue the constitution was a going to do?