The following primary documents include two antifederalist essays and three federalist essays that were published in newspapers three to six months following the Constitutional Convention. The antifederalists aimed to convince the states that the new constitution would not work while the federalists hoped to gain support and ratification of the new constitution. In 1787 and 1788, when the essays were written, the new country was struggling. The Articles of Confederation were not sufficient, and the fears that resulted in the Revolutionary War were still very fresh in the minds of everyone.
SUMMARY OF THE ESSAYS
THE ANTIFEDERALIST NO. 18-20 WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART1)
These antifederalist essays, as the other antifederalist essays, were written under a pseudonym. An Old Whig explains the necessity of a bill of rights in a constitution. These essays were published on November 27, 1787 approximately two months after the convening of the Constitutional Convention wherein the Constitution was drafted. The antifederalists were opposed to the new Constitution. The essays begin with criticizing the hastiness of attempting to pass the Constitution and the discarding of the Articles of Confederation. The writer suggests there is ample time to consider and revise the new Constitution. Laws must go through a process of revision and require careful consideration. A constitution, which affects the entire country, must also be carefully considered and revised as needed. Hastily creating a new form of government may result in the creation of a bad government which endangers the governed. It will create one large republic rather than a republic of states which will not last and ultimately become a monarchy. A bill of rights must also be included just as considered and included in England’s Magna Carta. A bill of rights will protect the liberties of the citizens. Citizens must have petition rights, habeas corpus rights and other civil liberties to guard them against any invasion of rights that a government may engage upon. Overall, this essay urges the readers to long consider passing the Constitution before carefully considering its contents. It recommends revisions where necessary and the inclusion of a bill of rights to protect the citizens against a barbarous government.
THE ANTIFEDERALIST NO. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR
Written in December 1787 under the pseudonym of Philanthropos, this antifederalist essay explains how the new constitution will result in a civil war. He begins with exclaiming that change always has had a significant effect on matters, and the change suggested by the new constitution has the potential to raise the dead. The writer alleges that the new constitution will bring a tyranny and will be a mistake if passed. He criticizes the powers given to Congress to borrow money and set their own salaries. The Articles of Confederation is sufficient as it protects the rights and liberties of the citizens and should thus continue to be used as the document to govern the new nation. Creating a new constitution is not only dangerous but deadly. The new constitution will result in a civil war which will destroy the new country.
THE FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 10
This essay was written by James Madison specifically to New York on November 23, 1767. Madison explains how the new government would protect the people. He explains that faction caused by instability, injustice and confusion can be the demise of a new government. Yet, factions are part of human nature and will always arise. Factions can, however, be addressed by controlling its effects. When a faction is a minority, a republic form of government can control the effects through majority vote. When a faction consists of the majority, only the newly proposed form of government as set forth in the constitution can respond appropriately. That is, the government with its representatives both nationally and locally can effectively represent the interests of the constituents if the proper number of representatives are elected by the people. This would be a large republic or the federal government over the states which consists of the union. And the states would have representatives in state legislatures from different districts. In this form of republican government, a faction throughout the whole state or throughout the whole union will be less likely to occur. Madison also explains the difference between a republican and democratic form of government. Democracies have trampled rights of its citizens and resulted in factions. Republican form of government can address and resolve this problem by having representatives from the citizenry.
THE FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 70
This essay was written by Alexander Hamilton on March 15, 1788 and address the power of the President under the new Constitution. He explains to the readers that an executive would not be in contradiction to a republican government. In particular, Hamilton explains the necessity of unity, duration, support and power in the executive. He expounds most on unity and how it exists with only one person serving as executive. He gives details of the qualities that the one person should possess in the position of president. If two persons were to serve as the executive, problems of unity would arise which could weaken the government. If two persons were in the executive position, it would be more difficult to make rapid decisions when needed for the security of the nation. Lastly, he discusses the necessity of a check on the executive.
THE FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 71
This essay was written by Alexander Hamilton on March 18, 1788 also to the people of New York and also addresses the power of the Executive under the new Constitution. The term of office as proposed in the new Constitution for the president was four years. Hamilton explains that a longer term of office is necessary as it accomplishes strength and stability. A long period of time for a president will ensure that he makes smarter choices and accepts greater responsibility for his decisions. This person must be stable and have the ability to consider the concerns of the people without self-interest or acting hastily. The term must be long enough to keep the interest of the person who serves as president but short enough to ensure too much power is given. The essay also includes a discussion of three separate branches of government and the independency of each. All power cannot rest with the legislative branch. However, the legislative branch must have power to check the power of the executive branch.
COMPARE/CONTRAST OF ESSAYS
It is clear that all five of the above essays were written by very intelligent men. Men who had concern for the new form of government, in its weakness or in its strength. The antifederalists in their essays were concerned about giving the federal government too much power while the federalists in their essays were attempting to assure people that the new form of government would sufficiently govern the new country in a desired manner. The antifederalists seem to appeal more to the emotions of the reader while the federalist’s papers aim toward logic. This makes sense at the time as the antifederalist were very fearful of a tyranny. The new country had just broke free from a monarchy and was really struggling to have consistency. The Articles of Confederation were not working, and both the federalists and antifederalists were aware of this. The federalists were well organized and very strong leaders in the new nation. The desire of the federalists was to convince the states that the new government would work and they did this by explaining in these essays the issues that the people feared the most and how the issues can be addressed only by the new form of government. The antifederalists, however, in their essays were strongly opposed and very sure that the new constitution would not sufficiently govern the new country. Both sides had valid arguments and it was surely the inclusion of the bill of rights that led to the ultimate ratification of the constitution.
The two antifederalist essays are very different in language and style, while the three federalist essays are very similar even though they were written by two different people. The antifederalist papers are also much shorter and get to the point without long explanations like the federalist essays. Also, the antifederalist essays are not real specific while the federalist’s essays address particular points in each essay. Finally, all of the essays reference other governments like England or Rome. This is done to give the readers a reference point, and also to gain support. The antifederalists refer to England to gain support because all were opposed to English rule, and the federalists refer often to Rome as a way to show that although Rome was not successful, the new form of government can be as it will be different than the Roman government.
EVALUATION OF THE ESSAY
Just in considering history, the federalist’s papers were more effective in achieving their ends. However, the most interesting of the documents is the Antifederalist No. 7. The writer begins the essay almost like a beginning of a book. It grabs the reader’s attention. Arousing the dead is a clever analogy. The language the writer uses throughout the essay makes the essay entertaining. The use of words to explain the new constitution would likely arouse more fear than the actual document itself. Various phrases like “0 Liberty, my country!” and “Beware my countrymen!” are used to grab attention and appeal to the emotions of the reader. The writer suggests that a civil war will result and then goes into detail about the effects of a civil war. Rather than rationally explaining why a civil war would occur or how to prevent a civil war, the writer expounds on its effects and appeals to the emotions of the readers. This is why I find this essay more interesting. As far as logic and rationality are concerned, the federalist essays make more sense. The essays explain in great detail the reasons for the new constitution, the possible ill effects of the new constitution and the resolution to any negative effects. The essays walk the readers through in a manner that calm their fears, rather than arouse their fears.
CONCLUSION
The antifederal and federalist essays above were used to explain and convince the new states that either the Articles of Confederation should continue with revision or a new form of government is necessary. All of the writers were aware that changes were needed. The antifederalists writing under pseudonyms aimed at enhancing the fears already in the minds of the citizens of the new country while the federalists attempted to appeal logically to the readers. All of these essays were printed in newspapers during the period of attempted ratification of the new constitution. Other than the form of publication and the obvious intellect of all the writers, the essays of the antifederalists and federalists had nothing in common. Ultimately, it seems however that the antifederalists did succeed as a bill of rights was amended into the new document. This new form of government has continued to last through centuries even with the many changes that have occurred in society.
