The 1700s through the 1800s saw the two political philosophies battle it out and define what the American constitution is today. It is observed that these two opposing philosophies steered the development of the modern American Constitution and gave it a gentle push towards the right direction. Americas best political minds set out to find common ground in the Philadelphia Convention regarding the government structure. These two parties both had issues on which they agreed and at the same time disagreed on other fronts; eventually both were to make considerable compromises and unite.
Led by James Wilson, the Federalists’ Party stood for scrapping off the Articles of Confederation. James portrayed his ideals aggressively giving specific focus to the benefits of the union between the states as predetermined in the Federalist papers. The main areas of emphasis for James and the Federalists at largely revolved around highlighting the illnesses in the current confederation and bringing out the effectiveness and efficiency of a centralized government were it to be established in the early America. The Federalists ideologies were driven by the intent of strengthening and protecting a young America Country by use of a strong Federal government. In accordance with Rohr (1993), James weight on the use of words such as government, power, representation and people denotes that a strong centralized government would spell order and regulation in state representation. Consequently, he argues that order would be preserved and, therefore, liberty would be secured for the larger republic. Additionally, the Federalist Party held that the people are bestowed with the ultimate authority of the country as the choice to give power is vested in the people. The people subsequently decide on the fate of the country. In his speech, James Wilson appealed to the Classic Republicans and concurred with their conviction of popular sovereignty. Regarding the individuals states, the Federalists maintain that the states should make small sacrifices in incentives that contribute towards the general protection of the public. Though James Wilson emphasizes on the government more than any other element in his speech, he was quick to protect the interests of the Federalists as that of a comprehensive Federal Republic (Bartrum, 2016). In reassurance the leader, insists that sovereignty would still be upheld by a centralized government.
References
Amar, A. R., Cooper, C. J., & Graglia, L. A. (1993). Anti-Federalists, The Federalist Papers, and the Big Argument for Union. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 16(1).
Bartrum, I. C. (2016). James Wilson and the Moral Foundations of Popular Sovereignty. Buffalo Law Review, 64, 71.
Rohr, J. A. (1993). Toward a more perfect union. Public Administration Review, 53(3), 246. http://doi.org/10.2307/3110130
