Maranatha Baptist Bible College
Submitted to:
William Licht
Early American Political Thought
HUHI 230
November 13, 2009
By
Breana Larsen

In the late 1700s, there arose a debate over the means by which the newly formed United
States of America were held together. A convention was called and the matter was discussed. A new document was proposed and the arguments began to build: those for it and those against it.
If I had lived in the 18 th
century, I would have been a federalist. I would have looked back in ancient and not-so-ancient history to see the failures of disunified nations without a central government and I would have looked at the arguments of the federalists themselves, coming to the conclusion that, while both sides of the argument held valid beliefs, the federalists held the best arguments.
Before this new constitution was proposed, the United States were governed under the
Articles of Confederation. In this agreement, the states were linked in a league of friendship.
This was the governing force for eight years and it failed miserably. The central government was so weak that it could barely function. It had no budget, required voluntary agreement from the states to do anything , no authority to tax states, and no authority to conduct foreign affairs. A change was needed or the states would fall apart eventually.
“ With the army in near mutiny. Congress unable to raise funds from delinquent states, foreign intrigue threatening to weaken or even dismember the new nation, and the states in bitter, unresolved quarrels among themselves, Hamilton and Madison were sure that only a centralgovernment with much increased powers could "cement the Union of the
States" and provide "the unanimity and vigor" necessary "for promoting the common weal"”
"Federalist Debates." EDSITEment - The Best of the Humanities on the Web. http://edsitement.neh.gov/ConstitutionDay/Federalist_Debates.html (accessed November 7, 2009).
. Ketcham, Ralph. 2008. Liberty's Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote
2

3
The central government needed enough authority to pull the states together and make them work together for a common goal. Because it did not have the authority to do that, each state was fighting for it’s own goals – and because of the diversity of states there were many . Another problem that made a strong central government a necessity was that foreign powers would not recognize the United States. They were too fragmented to be trusted with loans or treaties, so other countries declined to involve themselves. The United States needed to have a unified front in order to succeed, internally and overseas.
Proof was before everyone’s eyes that being scattered, fragmented states would not work and most agreed that a change needed to happen. An issue arose because people could not agree how much power to give the central government. The Anitfederalists wanted states to be more in control than the central government . They believed that the government would become tyrannous if it had so much control . On the other hand, the Federalists recognized that having a central government that was stronger than the states would benefit the states and the people, not injure them. Having a unified, strong government to look to as its head would cause each states to bind together closer than if they were each governed by its own agenda There would be a the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World. Journal of American History.
95 (September): 519-520.
"The Federalist #22." Constitution Society Home Page. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa06.htm
(accessed November 12, 2009).
"The ANTI-Federalist Papers 10." =GOOD NEWS - THE TRUTH - IaHUeH's SALVATION=. http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html (accessed November 12, 2009).
"The ANTI-Federalist Papers 9." =GOOD NEWS - THE TRUTH - IaHUeH's SALVATION=. http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html (accessed November 12, 2009).
Law Library – American Lawn and Legal Information. “Constitution of the
United States – Federalist Versus Anti-Federalist”.
Available from <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-

4 sense of harmony between states working toward one goal rather than a sense of animosity caused by them fighting for their regional concerns . It is completely unrealistic to think there can ever be unity when every ‘small republic’ is practically independent of the whole.
Having one central government would cause the individuals to be more united as well. Rather than focusing on the small, narrowed view from their geographical position, each would identify themselves with the entire country as a whole and, hopefully, see the needs of people in those other states. The Congress defined in the Articles of Confederation did not have the authority to make each state follow its mandates and that was the exact power it needed to unify the country.
Being unified did require the sacrifice of pushing one’s own agenda – of looking out for one’s own best interest – but it would benefit everyone in the end.
Having a strong central government was safer than being separate entities. Other countries would not trade or make treaties with this new country because there was no guarantee it was going to stay together. England was simply waiting for its chance to take the former
ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html">Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists</a>; Accessed
September 23, 2009
"The Federalist #6." Constitution Society Home Page. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa06.htm
(accessed November 8, 2009).
Law Library – American Lawn and Legal Information. “Constitution of the
United States – Federalist Versus Anti-Federalist”.
Available from <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-
ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html">Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists</a>; Accessed
September 23, 2009
"Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention,
1774-1789 - To Form a More Perfect Union: The Work of the Continental Congress & the Constitutional
Convention (American Memory from the Library of Congress)." American Memory from the Library of Congress -
Home Page. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/intro01.html (accessed November 7, 2009).

5 colonies back one by one as they split apart from discrepancies in goals.
1 0
Other countries, too, would have been more than happy to scoop up land in America. In Federalist 3 , Publius speaks about how centrality of government will make wars less likely. Foreign countries will be more hesitant to attack a country that will be unified it its retaliation.
1 1
Separated, with the central government unable to call military forces from all the states, some might be inclined to have an
‘it’s their problem’ mentality. Looking back in colonial history, it took the colonies until the
Boston Port Act of 1774 to inspire the other colonies to help out hurting sister colonies. A central government would help to look out for the needs of all the states rather than each looking out for itself without regard to others. Treaties are important, especially for a developing country.
Without them, the new country is left open to attack from any country at any time. Even just having other countries acknowledge a new country’s existence and control of a geographical area is beneficial to the growth of a new nation:
“it is well known that acknowledgements, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a state or confederacy of little consideration or power.”
1 2
The safety of individual citizen’s rights also depend on having a strong central government that in preemptive over states. If each state is sovereign in and of itself, then it has freedoms to make laws that other states disagree with. A citizen moving from state to state is subjected to the laws of state he is in at the moment. Without these being fairly uniform, a person can get in trouble for
1 0
Bassett, John Spencer. The American Nation: A History from original sources by associated scholars, V. 11 The Federalist System. Harper and Brother Publishers. 1906
1 1
"The Federalist #3." Constitution Society Home Page . N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009.
<http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa03.htm>.
1 2
"The Federalist #3." Constitution Society Home Page . N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009.
<http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa03.htm>.

6 doing things he thought were legal! Having a government that has the authority for enforcement and implementation of a consistent standard for laws is very important. That is not saying that state legislatures do not make the laws, but only that the federal government needs the authority to hold them to a certain standard
1 3
Although the Antifederalists are right to fear oppressive central government, the Federalist are right to recognize that some form of central government is needed for the safety of the whole as well as the individual.
If I were living in the late 1700s, I would have to look back in history for examples of nations that came before me, to see whether they succeeded as individual entities or if they had to join together under a central government in order to succeed. Biblically, I would look at the nation of Israel. At first, it was united and strong. However, when it split apart and became two nations, then it was susceptible to attack and captivity. Then I would look back in the near past and look at my homeland – England. Before England was a nation, it was comprised of many nobility that all ruled their own portion of land. Yes, there was a king who had some sort of power and commanded some sort of loyalty, but mostly the rule of the land came from the noble on whose land you were living. England had much fighting and no unity to speak of whatsoever.
Then came kings who pulled all the nobles together and subjected them to his rule. Some of their rights were sacrificed in the unifying of the country, but England ultimately became a stronger nation because of it. The history I would have looked back on in the 1700s would have indicated to me that the Federalists had the right idea when they wanted a unified whole rather than a confederation of friends.
1 3
"The Federalist #3." Constitution Society Home Page . N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009.
<http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa03.htm>.

7
It seems to me that the most important issue between the Antifederalists and the
Federalists was the question of who should have the most power in government: the individual states or a centralized government. If I had lived in the 1780s, this question would have been a struggle in my own mind. Both sides have legitimate concerns and both sides have valid evidence to support their side. However, if I honestly evaluated both and then attempted to decide which would most benefit the country as a whole, then I would have to be a Federalists.
The Articles of Confederation placed the states as supreme and that simply did not work! History shows that strong nations are those with a strong central government unifying them. The security of the nation as a whole demands a central government that presents a strong, united front to the world in order to garner respect. And, lastly, but probably the one that would have been most important to me at the time, the security of the liberties so recently fought for relies on the ability of a government strong enough to prevent their infringement by individual states. I would be a
Federalist.

P
RIMARY
S
OURCES
"The ANTI-Federalist Papers 10." =GOOD NEWS - THE TRUTH - IaHUeH's SALVATION=. http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html (accessed November 12, 2009).
"The ANTI-Federalist Papers 9." =GOOD NEWS - THE TRUTH - IaHUeH's SALVATION=. http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html (accessed November 12, 2009).
"The Federalist #22." Constitution Society Home Page. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa06.htm (accessed November 12, 2009).
"The Federalist #6." Constitution Society Home Page. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa06.htm (accessed November 8, 2009).
The Federalist #3." Constitution Society Home Page . N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2009.
<http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa03.htm>.
S ECONDARY S OURCES
Law Library – American Lawn and Legal Information. “Constitution of the
United States – Federalist Versus Anti-Federalist”.
Available from <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-
FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html">Constitution of the United
States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists</a>; Accessed September 23, 2009
"Federalist Debates." EDSITEment - The Best of the Humanities on the Web. http://edsitement.neh.gov/ConstitutionDay/Federalist_Debates.html (accessed November
7, 2009).
Ketcham, Ralph. 2008. Liberty's Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the
World. Journal of American History.
95 (September): 519-520.
"Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention,
1774-1789 - To Form a More Perfect Union: The Work of the Continental Congress & the Constitutional Convention (American Memory from the Library of Congress)."
American Memory from the Library of Congress - Home Page. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/intro01.html (accessed November
7, 2009).
8

Bassett, John Spencer. The American Nation: A History from original sources by associated scholars, V. 11 The Federalist System. Harper and Brother Publishers. 1906
Defending Federalism: Realizing Publius's Vision. 2008. Harvard Law Review.
122 (December): 745-766.
Meyerson, Michael I., “Disrespecting the Federalist Papers”, June 23, 2008
Available from >http://www.hnn.us/articles/49975.html<; Accessed September 23, 2009
9