Federalist What is a Federalist?
In the investigation of the constitutionunder your consideration, great care should be taken, that you do not form your opinions respecting it, from unimportant provisions, or fallacious appearances. On a careful examination, you will find, that many of its parts, of little moment, are well formed; in these it has a specious resemblance of a free government — but this is not sufficient to justify the adoption of it — the gilded pill, is often found to contain the most deadly poison.
You are not however to expect, a perfect form of government, any more than to meet with perfection in man: Under these impressions, it has been my object to turn your attention to the principal defects in this system.
I have attempted to shew, that a consolidation of this extensive continent, under one government, for internal, as well as external purposes, which is evidently the tendency of this constitutioncannot succeed, without a sacrifice of your liberties; and therefore that the attempt is not only preposterous, but extremely dangerous; and I have shewn, independent of this, that the plan is radically defective in a fundamental principle, which ought to be found in every free government; to wit, a declaration of rights.
I shall now proceed to take a nearer view of this system, to examine its parts more minutely, and shew that the powers are not properly deposited, for the security of public liberty. The first important object that presents itself in the organization of this government, is the legislature.
This is to be composed of two branches; the first to be called the general assembly, and is to be chosen by the people of the respective states, in proportion to the number of their inhabitants, and is to consist of sixty five members, with powers in the legislature to encrease the number, not to exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants.
The second branch is to be called the senate, and is to consist of twenty-six members, two of which are to be chosen by the legislatures of each of the states. In the former of these there is an appearance of justice, in the appointment of its members — but if the clause, which provides for this branch, be stripped of its ambiguity, it will be found that there is really no equality of representation, even in this house.
The words are "representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several states, which may be included in this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.
Representatives are to be proportioned among the states respectively, according to the number of freemen and slaves inhabiting them, counting five slaves for three free men.
If they have no share in government. Is it because in some of the states, a considerable part of the property of the inhabitants consists in a number of their fellow men, who are held in bondage, in defiance of every idea of benevolence, justice, and religion, and contrary to all the principles of liberty, which have been publickly avowed in the late glorious revolution?
If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the states, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented — for a great share of property in some of them. Why then should they be represented?
What adds to the evil is, that these states are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves, until the year — and for every cargo of these unhappy people, which unfeeling. There appears at the first view a manifest inconsistency, in the apportionment of representatives in the senate, upon the plan of a consolidated government.
On every principle of equity, and propriety, representation in a government should be in exact proportion to the numbers, or the aids afforded by the persons represented.
How unreasonable, and unjust then is it. The latter of which contains ten times her numbers. This article of the constitution will appear the more objectionable, if it is considered, that the powers vested in this branch of the legislature are very extensive, and greatly surpass those lodged in the assembly, not only for general purposes, but.
The Other branch of the legislature, in which, if in either, a f[a]int spark of democracy is to be found, should have been properly organized and established — but upon examination you will find, that this branch does not possess the qualities of a just representation, and that there is no kind of security, imperfect as it is.
It has been observed, that the happiness of society is the end of government — that every free government is founded in compact: The very term, representative, implies, that the person or body chosen for this purpose, should resemble those who appoint them — a representation of the people of America, if it be a true one, must be like the people.
It ought to be so constituted, that a person, who is a stranger to the country, might be able to form a just idea of their character, by knowing that of their representatives. They are the sign — the people are the thing signified.
It is absurd to speak of one thing being the representative of another, upon any other principle. The ground and reason of representation, in a free government, implies the same thing. Society instituted government to promote the happiness of the whole, and this is the great end always in view in the delegation of powers.
It must then have been intended, that those who are placed instead of the people, should possess their sentiments and feelings, and be governed by their interests, or, in other words, should bear the strongest resemblance of those in whose room they are substituted.
It is obvious, that for an assembly to be a true likeness of the people of any country, they must be considerably numerous. In this respect, the new constitution is radically defective. This extensive continent is made up of a number of different classes of people; and to have a proper representation of them.
The state of New-York, on the present apportionment, will send six members to the assembly: I will venture to affirm, that number cannot be found in the state, who will bear a just resemblance to the several classes of people who compose it.
In this assembly, the farmer, merchant, mecanick. I cannot conceive that any six men in this state can be found properly qualified in these respects to discharge such important duties: According to the common course of human affairs, the natural aristocracy of the country will be elected.
Wealth always creates influence, and this is generally much increased by large family connections:The constitution brought division between two groups, the federalists and the anti federalists. The two groups certain philosophies. The Constitution caused numerous debates on the future of America and its structure.
The anti-federalists have been concerned about the role of the national government and its dominance over citizens. The Timeline encourages the reader to see the following interplay: the pro-constitutional Caesar essays were responded to by the Antifederalist Brutus and Cato essays and these in turn were responded to with the launching of the essays by Publius that became The Federalist Papers in And this sort of interplay continues throughout the ratification process.
The Anti-Federalists believed that the representatives should represent all men, including the men of the lesser classes. In Brutus Essay II it is apparent that the Anti-Federalists see the need for representatives to show diversity.
Federalists’ beliefs could be better described as nationalist. The Federalists were instrumental in in shaping the new US Constitution, which strengthened the national government at the expense, according to the Antifederalists, of the states and the people.
The Federalists’ solution to this was to only have the elites be able to elect representative; the Anti-Federalists saw the need to point out that this representation would not be for the common good of the country and its citizens. The Anti-Federalists, however, didn’t want a powerful central government, but, instead, powerful state governments; in response to the Constitution, many Anti-Federalists began writing essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it.