The essays presented a number of arguments. The essays convincingly made the case for a strong unification of the states in Federalist number 1 to 14, highlighted the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation in Federalist number 15 to 22, argued about the benefits of a strong energetic central government in number 23 to 36, and mentioned the republican governments capability to provide political steadiness as well as freedom in numbers 35 to 51.
The essays following shortly after these scrutinized the roles of the three branches of government: the legislative numbers 52 to 66, the executive numbers 67 to 77, and the judicial numbers 78 to 83 along with the question of a bill of rights in Federalist number 84. The authors of the Federalist also reasoned the benefits of federalism. Furthermore, an impact on the United States law was done by the essays, which were written on the role of the federal judiciary for a long time now.
Federalist essay number 78 consists of a vital defense of the belief of the judicial review that is the power which permits the U. S. Supreme Court to eliminate laws passed by Congress. In Federalist number 80 it is argued by Hamilton that it is important to establish system of federal courts, which are separate from state courts. The theories of the European philosophers of the Enlightenment have built the political philosophy of the Federalist. In addition, the Articles of Confederation, as well as, their experience by the United States, and historical examples have also been included.
The treatise not only presented historical arguments and philosophical theories about the human nature and government, but also presented strong analysis of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. The general aim of the paper was to persuade the people that an energetic and strong centralized government would be more caring towards their freedom and independence. The philosophers thoughts were consideration of natural rights, and illustrated the kind of government best capable of protecting the rights of the people.
They recognized that a persons inclination towards self-protection, freedom, and selfishness would primarily come into conflict with the opposing needs of other people. Therefore, these philosophers maintained that the best type of government is one which balances the selfish needs of the human beings with the need of self-protection. The speculative thought that too much liberty can be terrible for an organized society was confirmed by the U. S government during the years of the Articles of Confederation. A shoddy amalgamation of independent states, as well as, the national government was provided by the articles.
A specific legislative body was considered for the positioning of the articles. Affairs relating to the mutual defense were discussed and decided by the bestowed powers on this legislative body, which has been referred as the Congress. The creation of a strong central government has been fearfully taken like the Great Britain, a significant power with the state governments has been placed by the delegates, and national government has been restricted with the powers greatly. Lack of power for the enforcement of law, funds collection, trade regulation, and uniform judgments provision has been responsible for the hampering of the Congress.
What is more, many intuitive leaders identified that the self-centeredness of the states would ultimately break the union and they also recognized that the Articles of Confederation presented no legal means to stop this collapse. States had clashes with each other over land, commerce regulations, and imposts against nearby states. States set up relations with foreign nations and declined to send tax money to Congress. The Virginia legislature called a delegate for the production of uniformity in trade, as well as, in the commerce.
The meeting was meant for the discussion of uniform trade regulations with the interested delegates from the different states. In spite of the small presence of states at the Annapolis Convention, the meeting motivated states to hold another meeting for the explicit reason of modifying the Articles of Confederation. Sufficient power was not within a weak central government for the provision of security and protection of the civil liberties of individuals, as assumed by the delegates with the help of guidance from the Article of Confederation experience.
Therefore, the delegates decided to entirely abolish the old system. The convention presented a new plan of government at the end of the summer of 1787, which was titled the U. S. Constitution. A strong central government was requested by this manuscript, in which all the other state governments will depend on this authoritative body and laws will be enforced, judged, and legislated by the bestowed powers to this body. The document was highly praised by the Federalists for the creation of energy in a centralized body.
However, it was feared by the Anti-federalists that their rights and liberties would be infringed by the new plan. Strong and rational justifications were provided for each choice of the Constitution Convention by the Federalist papers. Citizens were also persuaded by the papers that greater protection could be provided by the government for the people, if the hands of people will be placed with less power. Although the concern about ratification of the U. S.
Constitution in the New York state by Alexander Hamilton was originated with the document, ratification of the Constitution and its related essays were supported by the arguments of leaders in many states. Since the role of delegates to the Constitutional Convention was played by both Hamilton and Madison, the name Publius was used for all the published essays. As a large part for the constructing of document was done by the arguments, criticism as a subjective by these arguments was felt by them.
Even after nine out of thirteen state approvals were received by the Constitution, two of the most powerful states, the New York and Virginia continued their struggle for the ratification. Technically, ratification of New York or Virginia did not have any effect on the Constitution. However the writing down the federalist essays was not a futile assignment, even though the Constitution turned out to be successful without New Yorks support. While an effort was made by them for the persuasion of the American audience, an opportunity was received by them for being associated with the first federal republic.
A distinctive political philosophy was conveyed successfully by the Publius. Practice was possible, and philosophical theories and historical examples instituted this philosophy. Moist importantly, the experience during the accomplishment of the balance between order and freedom was the bases of this philosophy. The Federalist Papers reflect the end of an era in America, a chapter that began with the Mayflower Compact of 1620 and the various covenants, declarations, and state constitutions that followed, and culminated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
During that period of more than a century and a half, American political thought was formulated and tried, and arguments were rehearsed and refined in press, pulpit, and legislative chamber, often to express opposition to the British crown, but also to give an expanding country a workable government. It was against such a background that The Federalist Papers emerged, combining the traits Robert A. Ferguson ascribes to the Constitution: generic strength, manipulative brilliance, cunning restraint, and practical eloquence.
The essays presented in The Federalists are fundamental and ground-breaking statements of sound rational political thought, which carefully progress ahead the essential thoughts mentioned by theorists Hume, Locke, and Montesquieu. Rather than radically deposing off the old theory and practice, the authors of the Constitution cautiously studied it and took its finest aspects and gave them a new meaning altogether. The essays of the Federalists had more life and were more strongly remembered than material written by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, or Metternich.