Unit Two
Lesson Fourteen
The Federalist Position
in the Debate on
Ratification





Constitutional Conventions called in all 13 states to
consider the Constitution. Each state would debate if they
would approve this new form of government
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists sent
representative to each government to present their case
Debates were held at the state constitutional conventions
and in town squares across each state
Both sides wrote to newspapers and printed up pamphlets
to sway public opinion to their point of view (biased)
The Federalist Papers are still considered the
paramount writings on the form of democracy that America
is built upon
Ratification Debate
 Federalists
◦ George Washington, Benjamin
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John
Jay, James Madison
 Anti-Federalists
◦ Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry,
George Mason
Key Leaders for each side

The Anti-Federalists
◦ It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the
state governments.
◦ There was no bill of rights.
◦ The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.
◦ Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much
power.
◦ The executive branch held too much power.

The Federalists
◦ The separation of powers into three independent branches protected
the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of
the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group
can assume control over another.
◦ A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government
were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating
rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the
Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all.
Key Points for each side



Wanted to get out ahead of the Anti-Federalists
Believed if state conventions were held quickly, the AntFederalists would not be ready
The State Debates lasted 10 months
◦ A tense and bitter political struggle
◦ 3 men led the charge
◦ Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, & James Madison
◦ Published essays in newspapers “the Federalist Papers”
◦ Listed reasons to support the Constitution and the type of
republic it created (biased/propaganda)
◦ Addressed the key points the Anti-Federalists would
make, chiefly that there was no BILL OF RIGHTS
◦ Only highlighted the good points of the structure and
function of the new government, didn’t mention the areas
of conflict
Federalist Strategies

AF- a large republic could not be sustained over a large,
diverse nation
 Federalist Paper #10 – FACTION – any group that placed its
own interest ahead of the common good was what was the
problem, not the republic
◦ If the faction was the minority, the majority could simply outvote it
◦ If the faction was the majority, the risk of majority tyranny arose.
Democracy would fail the common good
◦ Majority tyranny a risk in a small, homogeneous society too. In
fact, the risk was higher. If unopposed, the majority could ignore
the common good in their own self-interest
◦ The benefits of a large diverse republic was the different factions
◦ Good representation “refined” public views by filtering out ideas
based solely on self-interest
Federalist Response to the
Anti-Federalist’s fears of a
Large Republic
1)
Civic Virtue can no longer be relied on as
the sole support of a government that can
protect people’s rights and promote their
welfare
1)
2)
3)
Greatest danger to the common good and the natural
rights of citizens is the pursuit of selfish interests
Many states had passed laws that helped those in
need at the cost of others (common good)
Federal government of a diverse country could not
solely rely on civic virtue to protect rights and to
promote the common good. Many interests and
factions would act as a check, no one would dominate
Central Argument of the
Federalists
2)
The way the Constitution organized the
government, including the separation of
powers and checks and balances, is the
best way to promote the goals of
republicanism
2) Rights protected by the complicated system of
checks and balances and federalism
3) By filtering the peoples’ vote thru the state
legislatures (Senate) and the Electoral College
(President), it ensured good choices of leaders
Central Argument of the
Federalists
3) The representation of different interests in the
government will protect basic rights
* The 3 branches would ensure different voices were
heard, distributing the powers of the government
1) Legislative : Peoples’ voice in the House of
Representatives. The Senate was the voice
of the states
2) Executive: National interests were taken
into consideration, chosen from prominent
leaders
3) Judicial: Good judgement over the national
government free from the political game.
Responsible ONLY TO THE CONSTITUTION
Central Argument of the
Federalists




By June 1788 – 9 states had ratified the
Constitution, enough for it to take effect
But New York and Virginia had not and without
them, the US could not survive as a nation
Federalists and Anti-Federalists made a deal, before
that state constitutional conventions, that the first
act of the new Congress would be to add a Bill of
Rights to the Constitution
Anti-Federalists main disagreement was now gone.
New York and Virginia quickly ratified. But there
were still debates. North Carolina held out until the
Bill of Rights were officially amended to the
Constitution. Rhode Island held out until economic
sanctions were threatened by new President George
Washington
How did Ratification
succeed?










Summary
This essay, the first of Madison's contributions to the series, was a rather long development of the theme
that a well-constructed union would break and control the violence of faction, a "dangerous vice" in popular
governments.
Defined by Madison, a faction was a number of citizens, whether a majority or minority, who were united
and activated "by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens,
or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
There were two ways of removing the causes of factions, or political parties. The first was to destroy the
liberty essential to their existence. This remedy would be worse than the disease. The second was to give
everyone the same opinions, passions, and interests. This was impossible. Woven into the fabric of all
societies, deeply planted in the very nature of man, were conflicting ideas, interests, and passions. The
greatest source of factions had always been the various and unequal distribution of property, said Madison:
Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those
who are creditors, and those who are debtors, . . . a landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile
interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide
them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and
interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation.
The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is
only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
Such effects could be better controlled in a large society under a representative form of government than in
a small society under a popular form of government. The proposed constitution would check the power of
factions by balancing one against the other. Factious leaders might "kindle a flame" in one state, but would
be unable to spread a general conflagration throughout the states.
"A rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper
or wicked project, . . ." was not likely to spread if those professing themselves republicans showed zeal in
"supporting the character of Federalists."
Analysis
Madison's definition of a "faction," or political party, is interesting and most significant in view of the fact
that Madison soon ceased to be one of the Federalists who believed in a one-party system, and became
Jefferson's most active lieutenant in organizing in opposition the Democratic-Republican Party, which was
strongly Anti-Federalist and took power after 1800.
Federalist #10


Unit Two Essay: Answer 2 of the essays below (10 points each)
HOW DID THE CONSTITUTION LIMIT GOVERNMENT POWER TO
PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHILE PROMOTING THE COMMON
GOOD?
◦ Why did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagree on whether the
Constitution sufficiently protected individual rights and promoted the common
good?
◦ What responsibilities, if any, do citizens have for seeing that individual rights
are protected and the common good is promoted?


WHAT WERE THE MAJOR CONFLICTS AT THE PHILADELPHIA
CONVENTION AND HOW WERE THEY RESOLVED?
◦ What are arguments can you make for and against giving each state the right
to send the same number of members to the Senate?
◦ What arguments can you make for and against including the 3/5ths clause and
the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution?


WHAT WERE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FEDERALISTS
AND THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS?
◦ How did the arguments of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists reflect their
points of view regarding natural rights, republicanism, and the powers of the
states?
◦ Why are the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates still relevant today?
UNIT TWO ESSAYS