federalist debate essay

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Federalist Papers

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 22, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal , under the pseudonym “Publius.” Addressed to “The People of the State of New York,” the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton , James Madison and John Jay . They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madison’s famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 , appeared in book form in 1788. Titled The Federalist , it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

Articles of Confederation

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nation’s ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War .

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

A New Constitution

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative , executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between “Federalists,” who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and “Antifederalists,” who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

The Rise of Publius

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

Who Wrote the Federalist Papers?

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Convention’s confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius,” after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Federalist Papers Summary

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage or to quell internal insurrections such as Shays’s Rebellion .

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

'Federalist 10'

In Federalist 10 , which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieu ’s assertion that true democracy—including Montesquieu’s concept of the separation of powers—was feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties ) within it. “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” he wrote. “[Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]”

After emphasizing the central government’s weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22 , Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the government’s power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

'Federalist 51'

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51 . “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate , Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nation’s first Congress.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004). Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010). “If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers.” Constitutional Rights Foundation . Dan T. Coenen, “Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers.” University of Georgia School of Law , April 1, 2007. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Timeline of the Federalist-Antifederalist Debates

Introduction to the chronology of the federalist-antifederalist debates.

The Federalist-Antifederalist Debate is usually conceived of as having taken place after the release of the Constitution in September, 1787, and continuing up to its ratification in 1788. The debate, waged between editorialists – some name and most under pen-names – began before the Constitutional Convention had formally convened, and picked up pace by August, 1787. Most initial essays, printed in newspapers across the states, were from opponents to a new government; however, as time passed and the Federalist authors began producing their work from New York, other Federalist-aligned authors joined the effort, even if there was virtually no coordination between them.

What follows are essays from both those who supported and opposed the new constitution, from across the country, from Spring 1787 through the closing days of 1788, provided alongside one another for context.

• May 16, 1787: Z. (Pennsylvania)

August 1787

• Aug 6, 1787: A Foreign Spectator I (Pennsylvania)
• Aug 9, 1787: Atticus Essay I (Massachusetts)
• Aug 10, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part IV (Pennsylvania)
• Aug 16, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part VI (Pennsylvania)
• Aug 17, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part VII (Pennsylvania)
• Aug 24, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part X (Pennsylvania)

September 1787

• Sept 4, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part XV (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 12, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part XX (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 13, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part XXI (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 13, 1787: Objections to the Constitution (Virginia)
• Sept 17, 1787: Benjamin Franklin Speech, Federal Convention (Constitutional Convention)
• Sept 17, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part XXIII (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 18, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part XXIV (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 21, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part XXV (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 26, 1787: Letter from Sherman and Ellsworth to the Governor of Connecticut (Connecticut)
• Sept 26, 1787: An American Citizen I (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 27, 1787: A Pennsylvania Farmer (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 27, 1787: Cato I (New York)
• Sept 28, 1787: Call for state ratifying conventions by Confederation Congress (Confederation Congress)
• Sept 28, 1787: A Foreign Spectator, Part XXVIII (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 28, 1787: An American Citizen II (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 28, 1787: An American Citizen III (Pennsylvania)
• Sept 29, 1787: Curtius No. I (New York)

October 1787

• Oct 1787: An American Citizen IV (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 1, 1787: Caesar I (New York)
• Oct 1, 1787: Letter from Richard Henry Lee to George Mason (Virginia)
• Oct 2, 1787: Foreign Spectator XXIX (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 5, 1787: Centinel I (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 6, 1787: Crito (Rhode Island)
• Oct 8, 1787: Federal Farmer I (Virginia)
• Oct 9, 1787: Federal Farmer II (Virginia)
• Oct 10, 1787: Federal Farmer III (Virginia)
• Oct 10, 1787: Randolph Letter, On the Federal Constitution (Virginia)
• Oct 11, 1787: Cato II (New York)
• Oct 12, 1787: Federal Farmer IV (Virginia)
• Oct 12, 1787: An Old Whig I (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 13, 1787: Federal Farmer V (Virginia)
• Oct 13, 1787: Convention Essay (Massachusetts)
• Oct 15, 1787: One of Four Thousand (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 17, 1787: Connecticut calls for state convention (Connecticut)
• Oct 17, 1787: A Democratic Federalist (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 17, 1787: Caesar II (New York)
• Oct 17, 1787: An Old Whig II (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 17, 1787: A Citizen of America by Noah Webster (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 17, 1787: A Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 18, 1787: Brutus I (New York) ( click here for special commentary on Brutus I )
• Oct 18, 1787: Elbridge Gerry’s Objections (Massachusetts)
• Oct 18, 1787: Atticus Essay II (Massachusetts)
• Oct 20, 1787: An Old Whig III (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 22, 1787: John DeWitt I (Massachusetts)
• Oct 24, 1787: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Virginia)
• Oct 24, 1787: Monitor Essay (Massachusetts)
• Oct 24, 1787: Centinel II (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 25, 1787: A Republican No. 1 (New York)
• Oct 25, 1787: Cato III (New York)
• Oct 25, 1787: A Federalist Essay (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 27, 1787: John DeWitt II (Massachusetts)
• Oct 27, 1787: An Old Whig IV (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 27, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 1 (New York)( Click here for special commentary on Federalist 1 )
• Oct 30, 1787: Philo-Publius Essay I (New York)
• Oct 30, 1787: Letter from Gouverneur Morris to George Washington (Pennsylvania)
• Oct 31, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 2 (New York)

November 1787

• Nov 1, 1787: An Old Whig V (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 1, 1787: Brutus II (New York)
• Nov 1, 1788: Cincinnatus No. 1 (New York)
• Nov 2, 1787: Foreigner I (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 3, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 3 (New York)
• Nov 3, 1788: Elbridge Gerry to the Massachusetts General Court (Massachusetts)
• Nov 5, 1787: John DeWitt III (Massachusetts)
• Nov 5, 1787: A Landholder Letter I (Connecticut)
• Nov 6, 1787: An Officer of the Late Continental Army (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 7, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 4 (New York)
• Nov 7, 1787: Philadelphiensis I (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 8, 1787: Centinel III (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 8, 1787: Brutus, Junior (New York)
• Nov 8, 1787: Cato IV (New York)
• Nov 8, 1787: Cincinnatus No. 2 (New York)
• Nov 8, 1787: Federal Farmer: Letters to the Republican (Virginia)
• Nov 10, 1787: Massachusetts Centinel (Massachusetts)
• Nov 10, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 5 (New York)
• Nov 14, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 6 (New York)
• Nov 12, 1787: A Landholder Letter II (Connecticut)
• Nov 14, 1787: Socius Essay (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 15, 1787: Brutus III (New York)
• Nov 15, 1787: A Countryman I (Connecticut)
• Nov 15, 1787: Essay by a Georgian (Georgia)
• Nov 16, 1787: Philo-Publius Essay II (New York)
• Nov 17, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 7 (New York)
• Nov 17, 1787: An American: The Crisis (Massachusetts)
• Nov 19, 1787: A Landholder III (Connecticut)
• Nov 19, 1787: A Farmer, of New Jersey: Observations on Government New York (New Jersey)
• Nov 20, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 8 (New York)
• Nov 21, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 9 (New York)
• Nov 21, 1787: George Mason’s Objections (Virginia)
• Nov 22, 1787: Brutus on Mason’s Objections (Virginia)
• Nov 22, 1787: Cato V (New York)
• Nov 22, 1787: A Countryman II (Connecticut)
• Nov 22, 1787: Atticus Essay III (Massachusetts)
• Nov 22, 1787: Cincinnatus No. 4 (New York)
• Nov 22, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 10 (New York)( Click here for special commentary on Federalist 10 )
• Nov 23, 1787: Agrippa I (Massachusetts)
• Nov 24, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 11 (New York)
• Nov 24, 1787: An Old Whig VI (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 24, 1787 – Dec 24, 1787: Timothy Pickering and the Letters from the Federal Farmer (New York)
• Nov 24, 1787: John Jay and the Constitution (New York)
• Nov 26, 1787: A Landholder Letter IV (Connecticut)
• Nov 26,1787: A Democratic Federalist (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 27, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 12 (New York)
• Nov 27, 1787: Agrippa II (Massachusetts)
• Nov 28, 1787: Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 28, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 13 (New York)
• Nov 28, 1787: Philadelphiensis II (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 28, 1787: An Old Whig VII (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 28, 1787: A Federal Republican: A Review of the Constitution (Virginia)
• Nov 29, 1787: Brutus IV (New York)
• Nov 29, 1787: Philo-Publius Essay III (New York)
• Nov 29, 1787: Maryland’s Constitutional Convention Delegates Address the State House of Delegates (Maryland)
• Nov 29, 1787: A Countryman III (Connecticut)
• Nov 30, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 14 (New York)
• Nov 30, 1787: Centinel IV (Pennsylvania)
• Nov 30, 1787: Agrippa III (Massachusetts)

December 1787

• Dec 1787: John DeWitt IV (Massachusetts)
• Dec 1, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 15 (New York)
• Dec 1, 1787: Philo-Publius Essay IV (New York)
• Dec 2, 1787: Daniel Carroll to Benjamin Franklin, Annapolis (Maryland)
• Dec 3, 1787: Agrippa IV (Massachusetts)
• Dec 3, 1787: A Landholder Letter V (Connecticut)
• Dec 3, 1787: Tobias Lear to John Langdon, Mount Vernon (Virginia)
• Dec 4, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 16 (New York)
• Dec 5, 1787: Philadelphiensis No. 3 (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 5, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 17 (New York)
• Dec 6, 1787: A Countryman IV (Connecticut)
• Dec 6, 1787: Z. (Massachusetts)
• Dec 6, 1787: Cincinnatus VI (New York)
• Dec 7, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 18 (New York)
• Dec 8, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 19 (New York)
• Dec 10, 1787: A Landholder VI (Connecticut)
• Dec 11, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 20 (New York)
• Dec 11, 1787: Agrippa V (Massachusetts)
• Dec 12, 1787: Philadelphiensis IV (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 12, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 21 (New York)
• Dec 12, 1787: Cato Essay (New York)
• Dec 13, 1787: Brutus V (New York)
• Dec 13, 1787: Alfred (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 14, 1787: Agrippa VI (Massachusetts)
• Dec 14, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 22 (New York)
• Dec 14, 1787: Letter from George Washington to Charles Carter (Virginia)
• Dec 16, 1787: Cato VI (New York)
• Dec 17, 1787: A Landholder Letter VII (Connecticut)
• Dec 18, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 23 (New York)
• Dec 18, 1787: Agrippa VII (Massachusetts)
• Dec 19, 1787: Extract of a Letter from New York, dated December 7 (New York)
• Dec 19, 1787: Anti-Cincinnatus (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 19, 1787: Philadelphiensis No. 5 (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 19, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 24 (New York)
• Dec 20, 1787: A Countryman V (Connecticut)
• Dec 21, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 25 (New York)
• Dec 22, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 26 (New York)
• Dec 22, 1787: Atticus Essay IV (Massachusetts)
• Dec 28, 1787: Genuine Information I (Maryland)
• Dec 24, 1787: A Landholder Letter VIII (Connecticut)
• Dec 25, 1787: Centinel VI (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 25, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 27 (New York)
• Dec 25, 1787: Federal Farmer VI (Virginia)
• Dec 25, 1787: Agrippa VIII (Massachusetts)
• Dec 26, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 28 (New York)
• Dec 26, 1787: Philadelphiensis No. 6 (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 27, 1787: Centinel VII (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 27, 1787: Brutus VI (New York)
• Dec 28, 1787: Samuel Adams and the Constitution (Massachusetts)
• Dec 28, 1787: Agrippa IX (Massachusetts)
• Dec 28, 1787: Luther Martin: Genuine Information II (Maryland)
• Dec 29, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 29 (New York)
• Dec 30, 1787: Federalist Paper No. 30 (New York)
• Dec 29, 1787: Centinel VIII (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 31, 1787: A Landholder Letter IX (Connecticut)
• Dec 31, 1787: Federal Farmer VII (Virginia)
• Dec 31, 1787: America by Noah Webster (New York)
• Dec 31, 1787: A Freeman Essay to the People of Connecticut (Connecticut)

Month Unknown

• 1788: A Citizen of New York (New York)

January 1788

• Jan 1788: Address by a Plebian (New York)
• Jan 1788: Advertisement for the Pamphlet Edition of the Federalist (New York)
• Jan 1, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 31 (New York)
• Jan 1, 1788: Agrippa X (Massachusetts)
• Jan 1, 1788: Genuine Information II ( Maryland)
• Jan 2, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 32 (New York)
• Jan 2, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 33 (New York)
• Jan 3, 1788: Cato VII (New York)
• Jan 3, 1788: Federal Farmer VIII (New York)
• Jan 3, 1788: Brutus VII (New York)
• Jan 4, 1788: Federal Farmer IX (Virginia)
• Jan 4, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information III (Maryland)
• Jan 5, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 34 (New York)
• Jan 5, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 35 (New York)
• Jan 7, 1788: Resolutions of the Tradesmen of Boston (Massachusetts)
• Jan 7, 1788: Federal Farmer X (Virginia)
• Jan 8, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 36 (New York)
• Jan 8, 1788: Centinel IX (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 8, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information IV (Maryland)
• Jan 8, 1788: Agrippa XI (Massachusetts)
• Jan 10, 1788: Brutus VIII (New York)
• Jan 10, 1788: Philadelphiensis No. 7 (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 11, 1788: Federal Farmer XI (Virginia)
• Jan 11, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 37 (New York)
• Jan 11, 1788: Common Sense Essay (Massachusetts)
• Jan 11, 1788: Agrippa XII Part 1  (Massachusetts)
• Jan 11, 1788: Governor George Clinton Speech to the New York Legislature (New York)
• Jan 11, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information V (Maryland)
• Jan 12, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 38 (New York)
• Jan 12, 1788: Federal Farmer XII (Virginia)
• Jan 12, 1788: Centinel X (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 14, 1788: Federal Farmer XIII (Virginia)
• Jan 14, 1788:  Agrippa XII Part 2  (Massachusetts)
• Jan 14, 1788: The Report of the New York’s Delegates to the Constitutional Convention (New York)
• Jan 15, 1788: Fisher Ames Speech, Massachusetts Convention (Massachusetts)
• Jan 15, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information VI (Maryland)
• Jan 16, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 39 (New York)
• Jan 16, 1788: State Soldier Essay I (Virginia)
• Jan 16, 1788: Centinel XI (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 17, 1788: Brutus IX (New York)
• Jan 17, 1788: Federal Farmer XIV (Virginia)
• Jan 18, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 40 (New York)
• Jan 18, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information VII (Maryland)
• Jan 18, 1788: Agrippa Letter XII Part 3 (Massachusetts)
• Jan 18, 1788: Federal Farmer XV (Virginia)
• Jan 18, 1788: A Citizen of New Haven by Roger Sherman, Letter I (Connecticut)
• Jan 19, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 41 (New York)
• Jan 22, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 42 . (New York)
• Jan 22, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information VIII (Maryland)
• Jan 22, 1788:  Agrippa XIII  (Massachusetts)
• Jan 23, 1788: Centinel XII ( Pennsylvania)
• Jan 23, 1788: Federal Farmer XVI ( Virginia)
• Jan 23, 1788: A Copy of a Letter from Centinel (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 23, 1788: Philadelphiensis VIII  (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 23, 1788: Federal Farmer XVII (Virginia)
• Jan 23, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 43 (New York)
• Jan 23, 1788: A Freeman Essay I (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 24, 1788: Brutus X (New York)
• Jan 25, 1788: Agrippa XIV Part 1  (Massachusetts)
• Jan 25, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 44 (New York)
• Jan 25, 1788: Federal Farmer XVIII (Virginia)
• Jan 26, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 45 (New York)
• Jan 27, 1788: Luther Martin to Thomas Cockey Deye (Maryland)
• Jan 29, 1788: Genuine Information IX (Maryland)
• Jan 29, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 46 (New York)
• Jan 29, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information IX (Maryland)
• Jan 29, 1788: Agrippa XIV Part 2  (Massachusetts)
• Jan 29, 1788: Agrippa XV (Massachusetts)
• Jan 30, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 47 (New York)
• Jan 30, 1788: A Freeman Essay II (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 30, 1788: Centinel XIII (Pennsylvania)
• Jan 31, 1788: Brutus XI (New York)

February 1788

• Feb 1, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 48 (New York)
• Feb 1, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information X (Maryland)
• Feb 2, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 49 (New York)
• Feb 5, 1788: Agrippa XVI  (Massachusetts)
• Feb 5, 1788: Centinel XIV (Pennsylvania)
• Feb 5, 1788: Sidney No. 1 (New York)
• Feb 5, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 50 (New York)
• Feb 6, 1788: Old Whig No. 8 (Pennsylvania)
• Feb 6, 1788: Philadelphiensis No. 9 (Pennsylvania)
• Feb 6, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 51 (New York)( Click here for special commentary on Federalist 51 )
• Feb 6, 1788: A Freeman Essay III (Pennsylvania)
• Feb 6, 1788: State Soldier Essay II (Virginia)
• Feb 7, 1788: Brutus XII (Part 1) (New York)
• Feb 8, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 52 (New York)
• Feb 8, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information XII (Maryland)
• Feb 9, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 53 ( New York)
• Feb 12, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 54 (New York)
• Feb 13, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 55 (New York)
• Feb 14, 1788: Brutus XII (Part 2) (New York)
• Feb 16, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 56 (New York)
• Feb 18, 1788: Elihu Essay (Connecticut)
• Feb 19, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 57 (New York)
• Feb 20, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 58 (New York)
• Feb 21, 1788: Brutus XIII (New York)
• Feb 21, 1788: Sidney No. 2 (New York)”
• Feb 22, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 59 (New York)
• Feb 22, 1788: Centinel XV (Pennsylvania)
• Feb 23, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 60 (New York)
• Feb 23, 1788: John Langdon to Rufus King (New Hampshire)
• Feb 25-27, 1788: Remarks on the New Plan of Government, Hugh Williamson (New York)
• Feb 26, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 61 (New York)
• Feb 26, 1788: Centinel XVI (Pennsylvania)
• Feb 27, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 62 (New York)
• Feb 27, 1788: Massachusetts Centinel (New Hampshire)
• Feb 27, 1788: Speech by John Hancock to the Massachusetts General Court (Massachusetts)
• Feb 28, 1788: Brutus XIV (Part 1) (New York)
• Feb 29, 1788: A Landholder X (Maryland)
• Mar 1, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 63 (New York)
• Mar 5, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 64 (New York)
• Mar 6, 1788: Brutus XIV (Part 2) (New York)
• Mar 7, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 65 (New York)
• Mar 7, 1788: Maryland Farmer Essay III (Part 1) (Maryland)
• Mar. 7, 1788: Reply to Maryland Landholder X (Maryland)
• Mar 8, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 66 (New York)
• Mar 8, 1788: Philadelphiensis XI  (Pennsylvania)
• Mar 10, 1788: A Landholder XI (Connecticut)
• Mar 11, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 67 (New York)
• Mar 12, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 68 (New York)
• Mar 12, 1788: State Soldier Essay III (Virginia)
• Mar 12, 1788: One of the People Called Quakers (Virginia)
• Mar 14, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 69 (New York)
• Mar 15, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 70 (New York)
• Mar 17, 1788: A Landholder XII (Connecticut)
• Mar 18, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 71 (New York)
• Mar 18, 1788: Maryland Farmer Essay III (Part 2) (Maryland)
• Mar 18, 1788: Luther Martin: Address No. 1 (Maryland)
• Mar 19, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 72 (New York)
• Mar 19, 1788: State Soldier Essay IV (Virginia)
• Mar 20, 1788: Brutus XV (New York)
• Mar 21, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 73 (New York)
• Mar 21, 1788: Luther Martin: Address No. 2 (Maryland)
• Mar 24, 1788: A Landholder Letter XIII (Connecticut)
• Mar 24, 1788: Centinel XVII (Pennsylvania)
• Mar 25, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 74 (New York)
• Mar 26, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 75 (New York)
• Mar 28, 1788: Luther Martin: Address No. 3 (Maryland)
• Mar 30, 1788: Luther Martin to the Citizens of the United States (Maryland)
• Apr 1, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 76 (New York)
• Apr 2, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 77 (New York)
• Apr 2, 1788: State Soldier Essay V (Virginia)
• Apr 4, 1788: Maryland Farmer Essay VII (Part 1) (Maryland)
• Apr 4, 1788: Luther Martin: Address No. 4 (Maryland)
• Apr 9, 1788: Centinel XVIII (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 9, 1788: Philadelphiensis XII (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 10, 1788: Brutus XVI (New York)
• Apr 10, 1788: Spurious Luther Martin: Address No. 5 (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 17, 1788: A Plebeian: An Address to the People of New York (New York)
• Apr 12, 1788: Fabius I (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 15, 1788: Fabius II (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 17, 1788: Fabius III (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 18, 1788: Elbridge Gerry Responds to the Maryland “Landholder” X (Massachusetts)
• Apr 19, 1788: Fabius IV ( Pennsylvania)
• Apr 22, 1788: Fabius V (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 24, 1788: Fabius VI (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 26, 1788: Fabius VII (Pennsylvania)
• Apr 29, 1788: Fabius VIII ( Pennsylvania)
• May 1, 1788: Fabius IX (Pennsylvania)
• May 2, 1788: Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican (Virginia)
• May 12, 1788: Philodemos Essay (Massachusetts)
• May 25, 1788: Observations on the Constitution (Virginia)
• May 28, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 78 (New York)
• June 1, 1788: Observations of the Constitution, James Monroe (Virginia)
• June 6, 1788: Edmund Randolph Speech (Virginia)
• June 10, 1788: Edmund Randolph Speech, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Virginia)
• June 18, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 79 (New York)
• June 21, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 80 (New York)
• June 24, 1788: John Lansing, New York Ratifying Convention (New York)
• June 25, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 81 (New York)
• July 2, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 82 (New York)
• July 4, 1788: Oration on the Fourth of July (Pennsylvania)
• July 5, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 83 ( New York)
• July 16, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 84 (New York)

August 1788

• August 13, 1788: Federalist Paper No. 85 (New York)

December 1788

• Dec 10, 1788: An American Citizen: Thoughts on the Subject of Amendments, Part II (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 18, 1788: A Citizen of New Haven by Roger Sherman, Letter I (Connecticut)
• Dec 24, 1788: An American Citizen: Thoughts on the Subject of Amendments, Part III (Pennsylvania)
• Dec 25, 1788: A Citizen of New Haven by Roger Sherman, Letter II (Connecticut)

Receive resources and noteworthy updates.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.4: Debates between Federalists and Antifederalists

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 125855

• Robert W. Maloy & Torrey Trust
• University of Massachusetts via EdTech Books

Standard 2.4: Debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists

Compare and contrast key ideas debated between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over ratification of the Constitution (e.g., federalism, factions, checks and balances, independent judiciary, republicanism, limited government). (Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for History and Social Science) [8.T2.4]

FOCUS QUESTION: What were the key points of debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists?

To replace the government that was operating under The Articles of Confederation , the Constitution was proposed, created, and sent to the states for ratification on September 17, 1787. To become law, the new Constitution had to be ratified (approved) by 9 of 13 states (as required by Article VII).

State legislatures were directed to call ratification conventions to debate and then approve or reject the new framework for the national government. Despite unhappiness over the Articles of Confederation, there was significant opposition to the new Constitution and its approval was very much in doubt in many states.

The debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution is known for the sharp divide it created among people in the newly independent states.

Two groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists , emerged with the Federalists arguing for ratification and the Anti-Federalists arguing against the ratification. Federalist supporters of the Constitution included James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, the authors of the Federalist Papers. Anti-Federalist opponents included George Clinton, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe (the future fifth President).

The new Constitution was finally approved on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it (The Day the Constitution Was Ratified).

What were the main disagreements between Federalists and Anti-Federalists? The modules for this topic outline the two sides, the role of women in the debates, and how those disagreements are still impacting our lives and our politics today.

Modules for this Standard Include:

• MEDIA LITERACY CONNECTIONS: Investigating Political Debates Through Songs from the Musical Hamilton
• UNCOVER: Abigail Adams, Mercy Otis Warren, and the Political Roles of Women
• ENGAGE: Who Should Have Primary Responsibility for Environmental Policies?

2.4.1 INVESTIGATE: The Federalist-Antifederalist Debates

The Federalists believed that the Constitution would create a needed change in the structure of government. In their view, the Articles had created disarray through a system where state governments competed with one another for power and control. Federalists hoped the Constitution would establish a strong central government that could enforce laws of states, get things done, and maintain the union. It would create stability and the promise of growth as a unified nation . Key examples of the views of Federalists can be found in Federalist Paper Number 10 and Federalist Papers Numbers 1, 9, 39, 51, and 78 .

The Anti-Federalists feared the Constitution would create a central government that would act like a monarchy with little protection for civil liberties . Anti-Federalists favored power for state governments where public debate and citizen awareness had opportunities to influence and direct state and national policies. Important primary sources for Anti-Federalists include The Federal Farmer I , Brutus I , and the Speech of Patrick Henry (June 5, 1788).

The divide was intense and in most states, ratification of the new Constitution just barely happened. The Massachusetts vote, held on February 6, 1788, was 187 for ratification, 168 against.

You can learn more at the resourcesforhistoryteachers wiki page Federalists and Anti-Federalists .

Media Literacy Connections: Investigating Political Debates Through Songs from the Musical Hamilton

Hamilton: An American Musical , written by Lin-Manuel Miranda, tells the story of Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States using hip hop, R&B, pop, and soul music as well as Broadway-style show tunes. It opened in February 2015 and won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Drama as well as numerous Tony Awards that same year.

Lin-Manuel Miranda described the musical as about "America then, as told by America now" ( The Atlantic , September 29, 2015, para. 2).

Explore how Hamilton portrays history and then write your own Hamilton- style lyrics in the following activities:

• Activity 1: Analyze the Lyrics from Hamilton
• Activity 2: Write Your Own Hamilton -Style Lyrics

Suggested Learning Activities

• Minimum Wage Laws
• Early Voting Days and Times
• Motorcycle Helmet Laws and Traffic Speed Limits
• Environmental Protections and Air Quality

Online Resources on Federalists and Anti-Federalists

• Multimedia video and lesson plan on the Constitutional Convention from Khan Academy
• The Question of States' Rights: The Constitution and American Federalism , from Exploring Constitutional Conflicts

2.4.2 UNCOVER: Abigail Adams, Mercy Otis Warren, and the Political Roles of Women

While men did the writing of the Constitution, the voices of women were heard in the debates over ratification and the rights of citizens.

Abigail Adams was an advocate for women's rights, supporter of education for women, and active opponent of slavery. She was also the wife of future President John Adams and mother of President John Quincy Adams. Her "Remember the Ladies" letter to husband John Adams is a famous document from the time.

You can read more of her writing at About the Correspondence Between John & Abigail Adams , from the Massachusetts Historical Society.

Mercy Otis Warren , from Barnstable and Plymouth, Massachusetts, was a poet, playwright, and essayist whose writing was strongly political - a dramatic departure from how women were supposed to behave at the time.

Mercy Otis Warren has been described as "the leading female intellectual of the Revolution and early republic" (Michals, 2015, para. 1; National Women's History Museum ). Warren was both an outspoken supporter of the American Revolution and a strong Anti-Federalist opponent of the Constitution. Like other anti-federalists, her opposition to the new government ranged from the "lack of a bill of rights guaranteeing freedom of the press and the rights of individuals, to the indirect, antidemocratic method for electing the president" (Brown & Tager, 2000, p. 108).

Mercy Otis Warren wrote many political pieces under the pseudonym "A Columbian Patriot" in support of the Anti-Federalist ideals. Explore her writing at: " Observations on the new Constitution, and on the federal and state conventions. By a Columbian patriot. ; Sic transit gloria Americana ."

• Watch the video The Founding Mothers of the United States: An Overview , in which journalist Cokie Roberts and author Walter Isaacson discuss the life and times of Martha Washington, Deborah Franklin, and Mercy Otis Warren.
• What roles did these women play in the beginning of the United States?
• Using Milestones for Women in Politics website as a starting point, build a timeline of women's political roles in the United States (using Timeline JS , Tiki Toki , or another interactive timeline builder).

Online Resources for the Political Role of Women in the Early United States

• Mercy Otis Warren , New World Encyclopedia
• Mercy Otis Marries James Warren, November 14, 1754
• Persuading male voters
• Crusades against slavery and alcohol
• Compelling narratives
• Political organizing
• Transforming everyday objects into political vehicles
• Did the American Revolution Change the Role of Women in Society? History in Dispute (Vol. 12)
• Founding Mothers: Women's Roles in American Independence

2.4.3 ENGAGE: Who Should Have Primary Responsibility for Environmental Policies?

In fulfilling a 2016 campaign pledge to create more business- and industry-friendly policies (especially for fossil fuel and nuclear power companies), the Presidential Administration of Donald Trump has dramatically altered the environmental policies of the federal government.

The Department of the Interior and other federal branch agencies have loosened or eliminated rules and regulations put in place by previous Presidents, rolling back offshore drilling safety regulations, greenlighting oil and gas pipeline projects, granting energy companies access to wildlife habitats, permitting increased logging of federal forests, and easing restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, among other changes ( A Running List of How President Trump is Changing Environmental Policy , National Geographic, 2017; updated 2019; Trump v. Earth , National Resources Defense Council, 2020).

Deregulation policies included replacing the Clean Power Plan, revising and weakening the Endangered Species Act, Coal Ash Rule, the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, and reversing bans on the use of pesticides in farming ( The Trump Administration's Major Environmental Deregulations , Brookings, December 15, 2020). You can follow changes in environmental rules and policies with a Climate Deregulation Tracker from the Sabin Center for Climate Change at Columbia University School of Law.

The Trump Administration's environmental policies have placed the federal government in direct and contentious opposition to numerous state governments , notably those controlled by Democrats. That state governments have a central role in environmental policy has been established in court, namely Massachusetts v. EPA (2006), a landmark climate change case where the Supreme Court ruled that a state government had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate auto emissions. That decision was written by Justice John Paul Stevens , who wrote a number of significant environmental decisions during his time on the Court; Stevens died in 2019 at the age of 99.

Trump policies led to direct conflicts with states, notably California, which has enacted stricter environmental protection laws than most of the rest of the states in the country ( California sues Trump again for revoking state's authority to limit auto emissions ). It is one of the latest examples of the historic tension in American politics between states' rights and federal power—a tension that goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation and what policies are to be controlled states or by the national government.

The Yosemite Land Grant of 1864 , signed by President Abraham Lincoln on June 30 of that year, was the first time the federal government set aside land specifically for preservation and recreational use. This area became Yosemite National Park in 1890.

The federal government established the world's first national park, Yellowstone National Park, in 1872. However, it did so on lands that native tribes consider sacred, adding another source of dispute between American Indians and the U.S. government (Yellowstone National Park Created on Sacred Land).

The National Park Service was created in 1916. Following the publication of Rachel Carson's seminal book Silent Spring (1962), Congress passed the Clean Air Acts of 1963, 1970 and 1990 along with the Clean Water Act in 1972. There is more historical background and information at a resourcesforhistoryteachers wiki page, The Clean Air Act .

Following the first Earth Day (1970), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970. As President, Barack Obama took numerous steps to extend environmental protections (Mother Nature Network, 2016).

Following the election of Joe Biden in 2020, Republican led states (asserting their powers as state governments under federalism) began passing legislation making it harder to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). The state of Florida, for example, passed a bill to prevent the city of Miami from banning natural gas infrastructure in new buildings.

The Biden Administration has responded by pausing new oil and gas leasing on public lands and water and reversing other Trump-era environmental and energy policies. You can track Joe Biden's environmental actions as President at this site from The Washington Post .

• Propose this role for yourself, another student, or a group of students as a school, classroom, or family sustainability ambassador.
• What steps could that person(s) take to improve air and water quality, food safety, waste reduction, and other environmental and climate justice concerns?
• Design a poster or short video explaining the role and its goals.
• What are the limits of states' rights and federal power in matters related to the environment?
• Can states block federal directives?
• Can the federal government ignore state laws?
• Should state governments or the federal government have primary responsibility for modern-day environmental policy?
• How successful were you in preventing a disaster?
• What did you learn about environmental policy choices from playing one of these games?

Online Resources for States' Rights vs. Federal Power in Modern-Day Environmental Politics

• Toxic 100 Names Top Climate, Air and Water Polluters , Political Economy Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst, July 29, 2019
• How the U.S. Protects the Environment, from Nixon to Trump , The Atlantic (March 29, 2017)
• In Trump Era, Democrats and Republicans Switch Sides on States' Rights, Reuters (January 26, 2017)
• The States Resist Trump's Environmental Agenda , Earth Institute, Columbia University (May 7, 2018)
• Environmental Laws Timeline Activity, American Bar Association
• Take a Poll, Debate the Issue: Environmental Policy , PBS Newshour (May 31, 2016)
• Is the "Right to Clean Water" Fake News? An Inquiry in Media Literacy and Human Rights , Social Studies and the Young Learner (2020)

Standard 2.4 Conclusion

During the writing of the Constitution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists offered sharply diverging visions for the roles of state and federal government, differences which have continued in American politics to the present day. INVESTIGATE outlined the main points of the Federalist-Anti-Federalist debates. UNCOVER examined the political roles of women through the actions of Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren. ENGAGE placed the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in a modern-day context by asking which level of government should have primary responsibility for environmental policies.

MA in American History : Apply now and enroll in graduate courses with top historians this summer!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• Eligibility
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

The United States Constitution: Federalists v. Anti-Federalists

By tim bailey, unit objective.

This unit is part of Gilder Lehrman’s series of Common Core State Standards–based teaching resources. These units were developed to enable students to understand, summarize, and analyze original texts of historical significance. Through a step-by-step process, students will acquire the skills to analyze any primary or secondary source material.

Today students will participate as members of a critical thinking group and "read like a detective" in order to analyze the arguments made by the Federalists in favor of ratifying the new US Constitution.

Introduction

Tell the students that after the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, the nation’s new Constitution had to be ratified by the states. The debate over ratification became very heated, especially in New York. This led to a spirited exchange of short essays between the Federalists, who promoted the new Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, who put forward a variety of objections to the proposed new government. Today we will be closely reading excerpts from four of the Federalist Papers in order to discover what the Federalists’ positions and arguments were. Although the Federalist Papers were written anonymously under the pen name "Publius," historians generally agree that the essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

• Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84 (excerpts) . Source: The full text of all the Federalist Papers are available online at the Library of Congress.
• US Constitution, 1787 . Source: Charters of Freedom , National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters
• Overhead projector or other display

The students will encounter vocabulary that they do not know. There are words in eighteenth-century essays that many adults do not know the meaning of either. It would be overwhelming to give the definition for every unknown word as well as self-defeating when we are trying to get the students to be more independent learners. One benefit of having the students work in groups is that they can reason out the meanings of words in context together. If the students are truly stuck on a word that is critical to the passage, you can open up a class discussion. As a last resort, you can provide the meaning.

First, a caution: do not reveal too much to the students about the arguments presented by either the Federalists or Anti-Federalists. The point is to let the students discover them through careful reading of the text and discussion with their classmates. They will then construct their own arguments based on the text. Depending on the length of the class period or other factors, this lesson may carry over into tomorrow as well.

• Divide the class into groups of three to five students. These will be the "critical thinking groups" for the next several days.
• Discuss the information in the introduction. The students need to at least be familiar with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and the writing of the US Constitution.
• Hand out the four excerpts from Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84. If possible have a copy up on a document projector so that everyone can see it and you can refer to it easily.
• "Share read" the Federalist Papers with the students. This is done by having the students follow along silently while the teacher begins reading aloud. The teacher models prosody, inflection, and punctuation. The teacher then asks the class to join in with the reading after a few sentences while the teacher continues to read along with the students, still serving as the model for the class. This technique will support struggling readers as well as English language learners (ELL).
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that groups interested in "the rights of the people" more often end up as "tyrants."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that the "effects" include "a division of society," and the remedy is the formation of "a republic."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that "such devices [separation of powers] should be necessary to control the abuses of government" and "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
• Answers will vary, but in the end they should conclude that "the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS . . ."
• Wrap-up: Discuss final conclusions and clarify points of confusion. We want students to be challenged, not overwhelmed.

Today students will participate as members of a critical thinking group and "read like a detective" in order to analyze the arguments made by the Anti-Federalists in opposition to ratifying the new US Constitution.

Review the background information from the last lesson. Today we will be closely reading excerpts from four of the Anti-Federalist Papers in order to discover just what the Anti-Federalists’ positions and arguments were. Although the Anti-Federalists’ essays were written anonymously under various pen names, most famously "Brutus," historians generally agree that among the authors of the Anti-Federalist essays were Robert Yates, Samuel Bryan, George Clinton, and Richard Henry Lee.

• Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84 (excerpts) . Source: Morton Borden, ed. The Antifederalist Papers (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1965). Unlike the Federalist Papers, the essays by Anti-Federalists were not conceived of as a unified series. Thus historians have imposed different numbering systems as they compiled various essays; the numbers used here are Morton Borden’s chronology.
• US Constitution, 1787
• Overhead projector or other display method

As in the previous lesson, encourage students to reason out the meanings of words they do not know. If the students are truly stuck on a word that is critical to the passage, you can open up a class discussion. As a last resort, you can provide the meaning.

• Students should sit with their critical thinking groups from the last lesson.
• Discuss the information in the introduction.
• Hand out the four excerpts from Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84. If possible have a copy up on a document projector so that everyone can see it and you can refer to it easily.
• "Share read" the Anti-Federalist Papers with the students.
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that the "Aristocracy" and "Lawyers" are out to deceive "The People" in order to "satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that this Anti-Federalist Paper is a satire and that the evidence includes statements such as "totally incapable of thinking or acting" and "have power over little else than yoking hogs."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that "the Congress are therefore vested with the supreme legislative powers" and "undefined, unbounded and immense power."
• Answers will vary but in the end they should conclude that "but rulers have the same propensities as other men, they are likely to use the power with which they are vested, for private purposes" and "grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution."

The students will deeply understand the major arguments concerning the ratification of the US Constitution. This understanding will be built upon close analysis of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. The students will demonstrate their understanding in both writing and speaking.

Tell the students that now they get to apply their knowledge and understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments. They will need to select a debate moderator from within their group and divide the remaining students into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. As a group they will write questions based on the issues presented in the primary documents. They will also script responses from both sides based solely on what is written in the documents. This is not an actual debate but rather a scripted presentation for the sake of making arguments that the authors of these documents would have made in a debate format. In the next lesson the groups will present their debates for the class.

• Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84 (excerpts)
• Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84 (excerpts)

Students will be sitting with the same critical thinking group as in the previous two lessons. All of the students should have copies of the excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the United States Constitution as reference materials.

• Tell the students that they need to choose one person to be a debate moderator and then divide the rest of the group into Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
• Inform the students that they will be writing a script for a debate based on the issues raised in the primary documents that you have been studying. This script is to be written as a team effort, and everyone in the group will have a copy of the final script.
• The teacher will provide three questions that all groups must address during the debate. However, the students should add another two to four questions that can be answered directly from the primary source material.
• It is important that the students portraying both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists use the actual text from the documents to make their arguments.
• What is your position on a bill of rights being added to the Constitution?
• How would you address concerns about the "powers of government" under this new Constitution?
• Can you explain why this Constitution is or is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole?
• Students can then construct their own questions to be directed to either side with the opportunity for rebuttal from the other side.
• Remind the students again that everyone needs to work on the script and the responses must be taken directly from the text of the documents introduced in class.
• Wrap-up: If students have time, let them rehearse their presentations for the next lesson.

The students will demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments. This is not an actual debate but a scripted presentation making arguments that the authors of these documents would have made in a debate format.

Students will be sitting with the same critical thinking groups as in the previous three lessons. All of the students should have copies of the excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the United States Constitution as reference materials.

• Tell the students that they will be presenting the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that they scripted in the last lesson.
• The Moderator should begin the debate by introducing both sides and setting out the protocol for the "debate." (Actually watching a clip of a debate might be helpful as well.)
• In evaluating the student work you should measure the following: Did the students effectively address all three mandatory questions using text-based evidence? Did the additional questions developed by the students address pertinent issues? Were all of the students in a group involved in the process?
• Wrap-up: As time allows, have students debrief the last four lessons and what they learned.
• OPTIONAL: If you believe that you need to evaluate more individualized understanding of the issues presented over the past four lessons you can have students write a short essay addressing the three mandatory questions that they were given as a group.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

The Ratification Debate on the Constitution

Written by: Bill of Rights Institute

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the differing ideological positions on the structure and function of the federal government

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Narrative with the Were the Anti-Federalists Unduly Suspicious or Insightful Political Thinkers? Point-Counterpoint and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate on Congress’s Powers of Taxation DBQ Lesson to have students analyze the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

On September 19, 1787, the Pennsylvania Packet newspaper published the draft of the Constitution for the consideration of the people and their representatives. On September 28, the Confederation Congress voted to send the Constitution to the state legislatures as written, so state conventions could be called to decide whether to ratify the new framework of government.

During the year-long debates over ratification, supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists; as a result, their opponents were known as Anti-Federalists. At the center of the often-contentious arguments that took place in homes, taverns, and on the printed page was the federal principle of balancing national and state power. Federalists defended the Constitution’s strengthened national government, with its greater congressional powers, more powerful executive, and independent judiciary. They argued that the new government supported the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, worried that the proposed constitution represented a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution. Had not Americans fought a war against the consolidation of power in a distant, central government that claimed unlimited powers of taxation? They feared a large republic in which the government, like the Empire from which they had declared independence, was unresponsive to the people. They also feared that a corrupt senate, judiciary, and executive would conspire to form an aristocracy. Finally, they argued against the absence of a bill of rights. States had them, in no small part because they remembered the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which had helped focus attention on the ways in which the British government abused its power.

Through September and October, various Anti-Federalists published essays under pseudonyms like Brutus, Cato, and the Federal Farmer in New York newspapers critiquing the Constitution. Although they did not coordinate their efforts, a coherent set of principles about government and opposition to the proposed Constitution emerged. Alexander Hamilton noted that the “artillery of [the Constitution’s] opponents makes some impression.”

In mid-October, for a series of essays he planned to defend the Constitution from critics, Hamilton enlisted the contributions of Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” as well as John Jay, the president of the Continental Congress and a New York diplomat. The first of these Federalist essays was published in a New York newspaper, under the pseudonym Publius, on October 27. It was addressed to the people of New York but was aimed at the delegates to the state’s Ratifying Convention. In it, Hamilton described the meaning of the choice the states would make:

It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Alexander Hamilton, shown in an 1806 portrait by John Trumbull, was the driving force behind The Federalist Paper sand wrote fifty-one of the essays arguing for ratification.

By mid-January, 1788, five states (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) had ratified the Constitution. The Federalists were building momentum toward the nine states they needed to win, but they knew the main opposition would come from Anti-Federalists in large and powerful states, including Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.

The Anti-Federalists were also mounting an effective opposition in essays and debates. Some demanded prior amendments to be sent to a second convention before they would accept the new government. During the debate in Massachusetts, opposition forced the Federalists to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified as written. On February 6, Massachusetts became the sixth state to approve the Constitution by a narrow vote of 187 to 168.

In New Hampshire, the Federalists thought they did not have enough votes to ratify, so they strategically adjourned the convention until June so that they could muster more support. Two other states, Maryland and South Carolina, met that spring and overwhelmingly ratified the Constitution, bringing the total to eight. Still, to be considered legitimate the Constitution would need the support of Virginia and New York, because of their political and economic influence and geographical location, even if the approval of nine other states met the constitutional threshold for the new government to go into operation.

On March 22, Hamilton and Madison arranged for the first thirty-six Federalist essays to be published in book form and distributed copies to friends in hope of influencing the delegates to the New York and Virginia ratifying conventions. Because the outcome remained highly uncertain, a second volume including the rest of the eighty-five essays was published on May 28. George Washington praised The Federalist for throwing “new lights upon the science of government” and giving “the rights of man a full and fair discussion.” Thomas Jefferson said it was “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” The Anti-Federalist essays contributed important reflections on human nature and the character of a republican government in making arguments about why the writers thought the proposed Constitution dangerously expanded the powers of the central government.

When the Virginia Convention met on June 2, a titanic debate took place as two Federalist masters of political debate, Madison and John Marshall, clashed with George Mason and the fiery orator Patrick Henry. Among other Virginians, Washington stayed above the debate, although everyone knew he supported the Constitution, and Jefferson, then in Paris, at first opposed and then supported ratification with prior amendments, because he favored a bill of rights.

Railing against the Constitution, Henry warned that the states would lose their sovereignty in a Union of “we the people” instead of “we the states.” He cautioned that a powerful national government would violate natural rights and civil liberties, thus destroying “the rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press . . . all pretentions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change.” Henry also thundered that the president would lead a standing army against the people.

Madison countered with a line-by-line exposition of the reasoning behind each clause of the Constitution. On June 25, the Virginia Convention voted 89 to 79 for ratification.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Federalists dominated the New York Convention three to one. Hamilton passionately defended the Constitution and urged his allies in Virginia and New Hampshire to send word of the outcomes in those two states by express rider to influence the New York debate. New Yorkers soon learned that the Constitution had officially become the fundamental law of the land for the states adopting it. The question was now whether New York would join the new federal union. On July 26, by a narrow vote of 30 to 27, New York answered in the affirmative, conditionally ratifying the Constitution with a call for another convention to propose a bill of rights. Only after Congress voted in 1789 to send amendments to the states for approval did North Carolina and Rhode Island vote to ratify the new Constitution.

The sovereign people participated in a great deliberative moment in which they ultimately decided to accept a new Constitution with a central government wielding greater powers to protect their rights, safety, and happiness. The formal and informal deliberations about the principles of government defined the republican nature of the new U.S. government. Meanwhile, the spirit of compromise that yielded not only ratification but also, at the urging of Anti-Federalists, the adoption of the Bill of Rights, reflected genuine patriotism by the people who served the public good and suggested that the Americans were capable of self-government.

Review Questions

1. Who of the following were key advocates for the Constitution?

• Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison
• John Jay, George Mason, and James Madison
• Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Edmund Randolph
• George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Edmund Randolph

2. Who of the following refused to sign the Constitution because, in their opinion, it gave too much power to the federal government?

• George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph

3. What key feature, which many Anti-Federalists argued was essential, was missing from the original Constitution?

• A due process clause
• A decision on the issue of the slave trade
• A bill of rights
• Multiple branches of government

4. Which of the following was the primary source of disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists when debating the merits of the Constitution?

• Inclusion of clauses that acknowledge slavery and included slaves in representation
• Size and scope of the federal government balanced with that of the states
• Ability to conduct foreign affairs at the federal level only
• Possibility of the legislative branch requiring taxes at the state level

5. The Anti-Federalists’ distrust of corrupt elite politicians is best exemplified by their adamant insistence on the

• electoral college, which would elect the president
• Supreme Court Justices, who would be elected not appointed
• Bill of Rights, which articulated the rights of each person
• executive position, which would be eligible for reelection

6. One advantage the Federalists had during the ratification debate was that

• many smaller state governments were open to the concept of a stronger federal government
• highly organized authors published essay after essay supporting and explaining the new form of government
• the large and influential states of New York and Virginia were eager to ratify the Constitution as soon as possible
• almost unanimous support for the Constitution existed in every state

7. Many Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution’s strong national government was

• absolutely necessary to protect the sovereignty of the nation
• too similar to the monarchy from which colonists had fought to be free
• carefully crafted to prevent any abuses of private citizens
• akin to the Articles of Confederation, which required no change

8. How did the debate for ratification ultimately end?

• Not enough states voted to ratify and the Constitution did not become the government of the United States,
• The minimum number of states ratified the Constitution, so it became the law of the land, but only for the states that accepted it.
• Each state ultimately ratified the Constitution, despite close votes and thorough debates.
• Debates continue on the merits of the Constitution, and a few states still need to hold their ratifying convention.

Free Response Questions

• How did the ratification debate demonstrate republicanism in the United States’ founding?
• How was the deliberative process of making and ratifying the Constitution a key moment in the history of republics?

AP Practice Questions

The Federal Pillars.

1. The image shown best supports which argument of the ratification debate?

• The need for a bill of rights to curtail the powers of the central government and guarantee people’s individual liberties
• The potential destruction of deliberation and creation of rival factions
• The view that states need to stand individually without an overarching, omnipotent central government
• The need for states to support and ratify the Constitution to guarantee the existence of a republican union

“In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers: No. 1 , October 27, 1787

2. Which of the following best describes the purpose of The Federalist essays?

• To promote the advantages of states’ rights
• To convince delegates and people to support the Constitution to secure ratification
• To narrate the ongoing deliberations at the ratification conventions
• To outline characteristics of a new form of government to be included in the Constitution

3. Which of the following is an accurate statement about Anti-Federalist and Federalist beliefs in constitutional principles?

• Anti-Federalists argued for the value of limited central government, whereas Federalists maintained that natural rights to life, liberty, and property would be best protected under a strong central government.
• Anti-Federalists supported the idea of a strong executive elected by the consent of the governed, whereas Federalists argued for states’ rights and cooperation of the states as a confederacy.
• Anti-Federalists asserted that the rule of law would best serve the people of the United States, whereas Federalists promoted a limited government and cooperation of the states.
• Anti-Federalists advocated for republicanism and self-governance, whereas Federalists argued that a representative government could be legitimized only through cooperation with international allies.

“Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

The United States Bill of Rights, 1789

4. Which of the following pieces of outside evidence provides context for this document?

• Many citizens were concerned that individual rights were not expressed in the Constitution and demanded the addition.
• The Founders wanted to follow in the footsteps of Great Britain by adding a bill of rights.
• Women felt strongly their needs were not being met by the Constitution and held a convention of their own, resulting in this document.
• After intense debate, state conventions decided this document would replace the Constitution.

5. Which of the following did not influence the addition of the Bill of Rights?

• Actions taken by the British government before and during the Revolution inspired some of the amendments.
• State constitutions had articulated many of these rights prior to the Constitution.
• Political factions demanded clarification of inalienable rights to support the Constitution’s ratification.
• The French alliance inspired the founders to adopt the French form of government.

6. Which of the following explains why the amendments provided were not included in the original Constitution?

• State delegations at the Convention argued that additional amendments were unnecessary because most states already had a Bills of Rights.
• The Founders published the Constitution in newspapers and forgot to include the page with these amendments.
• The Founders were influenced by the British tradition of unwritten government that relied on precedent.
• Delegates at the convention were unable to reach a quorum to vote on these items, because the summer was over and many had already headed home.

7. Which political faction primarily advocated the document excerpted previously?

• Federalists
• Anti-Federalists

Primary Sources

Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist 1 . American History. University of Groningen. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-1.php

U.S. Constitution . Yale Law School. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp

Suggested Resources

Allen, W.B. and Gordon Lloyd, eds. The Essential Anti-Federalist . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Bailyn, Bernard, ed. The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification . 2 vols. New York: Library of America, 1993.

Carey, George W. and James McClellan. The Federalist: The Gideon Edition . Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001.

Cornell, Saul. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

Ketcham, Ralph, ed. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates . New York: New American Library, 1986.

Lloyd, Gordon. “The Federalist-Antifederalist Debate.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/founding/

Lloyd, Gordon. “The Ratification of the United States Constitution.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/founding/

Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 . New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.

Main, Jackson Turner. The Anti-Federalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961.

Meyerson, Michael I. Liberty’s Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World . New York: Basic, 2008.

Morris, Richard B. Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and the Constitution. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985.

Rakove, Jack. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution . New York: Vintage, 1996.

Storing, Herbert. What the Anti-Federalists were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution</e

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

The Federalist Debates: Balancing Power Between State and Federal Governments

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Library of Congress

This series of activities introduces students to one of the most hotly debated issues during the formation of the American government -- how much power the federal government should have  — or alternatively, how much liberty states and citizens should have. The lesson begins by tracing the U.S. federal system of government to its roots, established by America's Founding Fathers in the late 18th century, highlighting the controversial issue of state sovereignty versus federal power. Students compare the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, analyzing why weaknesses in the former led to the creation of the latter. Then they examine the resulting system of government formed by the Constitution, investigating the relationship between federal and state governments as they exist today. Finally, students reflect back on history and argue whether they believe Hamilton or Jefferson had the more enduring vision for America.

Guiding Questions

How should power be distributed between states and the federal government for a successful democracy?

What are the pros and cons of state sovereignty vs. federalism, as argued by the Founding Fathers?

Learning Objectives

Examine the differences and similarities between state and federal governments and their functions, structures, and powers.

Evaluate the arguments forwarded by Federalists and the Anti-Federalists regarding the proper role of government. 

Construct a position regarding federalism based on analysis of primary sources and your own evaluation of the proper role of government. 

Lesson Plan Details

At the same time the thirteen original colonies drafted the Declaration of Independence to announce their intended separation from England, they also wrote the Articles of Confederation to define their relationship with each other as a joint entity. The Articles served to unify the colonies through the Revolution, but as the new states tried to recover from the war and move ahead as a nation, the Articles of Confederation proved too weak to be effective. As the Library of Congress article " To Form a More Perfect Union " explains, "With the passage of time, weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation became apparent; Congress commanded little respect and no support from state governments anxious to maintain their power. Congress could not raise funds, regulate trade, or conduct foreign policy without the voluntary agreement of the states. Recognizing the need to improve the government, Congress tried to strengthen the Articles, but problems persisted."

Essentially, the Congress could not raise money from the states, and thus there was no budget for the collective governing body. Thus, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened. "To Form a More Perfect Union" summarizes the cause and result of this convention: "The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called to revise the ailing Articles of Confederation. However, the Convention soon abandoned the Articles, drafting a new Constitution with a much stronger national government. Nine states had to approve the Constitution before it could go into effect. After a long and often bitter debate, eleven states ratified the Constitution, which instituted a new form of government for the United States."

The debate was lively and heated and largely centered around how much power the federal government should have. Two Founding Fathers who represented opposing sides were Alexander Hamilton, who argued for a strong national government with James Madison and John Jay in the seminal Federalist Papers , and Thomas Jefferson, who favored a weaker central government and more power resting with individual states. Behind their philosophies were their different perspectives on human nature: Jefferson was an idealist who believed in the inherent good of humanity, and Hamilton was a pragmatist who was more cynical about trusting people to do the right thing. These men and others spent months deliberating about how much centralized government was the right amount for a functioning democracy. The issue was particularly salient because the states had just won independence from a government they considered too controlling, in which decisions were made about the colonists' lives and finances without involving those affected. Thus, there was a strong reaction against a government far removed from those being governed and their concerns, which differed significantly among the colonies. Nonetheless, a government that could not even raise enough money to support its own work could do little good for its people.

Eventually, the Constitution was developed through much deliberation, compromise, and commitment to democratic ideals. The Congress approved the Constitution in 1787, and it was ratified in 1788 by the ninth state (New Hampshire), the final approval needed to put it into effect. This document established the structure of our democratic government as it still stands today. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights , were proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

NCSS.D2.His.1.9-12. Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts.

NCSS.D2.His.2.9-12. Analyze change and continuity in historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.3.9-12. Use questions generated about individuals and groups to assess how the significance of their actions changes over time and is shaped by the historical context.

NCSS.D2.His.4.9-12. Analyze complex and interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.5.9-12. Analyze how historical contexts shaped and continue to shape people’s perspectives.

NCSS.D2.His.6.9-12. Analyze the ways in which the perspectives of those writing history shaped the history that they produced.

NCSS.D2.His.12.9-12. Use questions generated about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources.

NCSS.D2.His.14.9-12. Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past.

NCSS.D2.His.15.9-12. Distinguish between long-term causes and triggering events in developing a historical argument.

NCSS.D2.His.16.9-12. Integrate evidence from multiple relevant historical sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument about the past.

Begin by reading the lesson in its entirety. Teaching this lesson requires a basic understanding of the period of history during which the U.S. government was established (roughly between 1776 and 1791).

For further background on the Founding Fathers, Founding Documents, and establishment of a new democratic nation, you may consult the following resources:

• "Constitution of the United States—A History,"  available through America's Founding Documents at the National Archives website.
• "To Form a More Perfect Union," available from the Library of Congress .
• The U.S. Constitution , available through  America's Founding Documents  at the National Archives website.
• The Articles of Confederation , available through EDSITEment-reviewed resource The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

You will need to choose which resources to use and how to teach the activities based on the particulars of your situation, including access to computers/Internet as well as the reading/writing levels and background knowledge that your students bring to the lesson. Some activities are better suited for younger students and others are more appropriate for older students. Before teaching, make copies of any handouts you will distribute to students and make sure necessary equipment is working.

Activity 1. Perfecting the Union: From the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution

Ask students to read a brief overview of the period of American history between the Articles of Confederation (drafted in 1776 and approved in 1781) and the Constitution (drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788), which replaced the original Articles with a stronger federal government after much debate. Depending on students' reading levels, the following documents might serve as a good overview:

• " The Voting Record of the Constitutional Convention " (Click on "Read More"), available from the National Archives.
• " To Form A More Perfect Union " (particularly the sections "Identifying Defects in the Confederation" and "Creating a Constitution") available from the Library of Congress.

Next, students should read and compare the Articles of Confederation (the first plan for American government) with the U.S. Constitution (the final plan for American government). Print the Articles of Confederation and the original U.S. Constitution (see print-friendly version). Divide the class into an even number of small groups of 3-4 students. Half the groups should get a copy of the Articles of Confederation, and half should get a copy of the Constitution. They should divide the pages among themselves so that each student reads different articles. Each article should be summarized in one sentence and compiled into a group summary. Then, each "Articles of Confederation" group should join with a "Constitution" group. Each combined group should now discuss the questions on the worksheet Why the Constitution? , provided in pdf format, using their article summaries and the original documents for reference. While groups should discuss the answers together, each student should complete a worksheet individually.

For more background on the ideas and documents that paved the way for the Constitution, see the EDSITEment lesson  Jefferson vs. Franklin: Revolutionary Philosophers .

Activity 2. Liberty and Human Nature

After they have some background on this period of vigorous debate, engage students in a class discussion about the issues at hand, asking them to imagine that they were charged with the task of setting up a brand new government for a new country. Pose the question, "How much liberty is enough?" and see where individual students stand. Encourage students to use logical reasoning and examples from history to support their views. Make sure that each student responds to the question in some way. If helpful, you can ask students to focus on a representative microcosm such as the school or the classroom.

Next, share with students the quotes below from Jefferson and Hamilton expressing opposing views about human nature. You can give them one quote at a time and ask each student to agree or disagree, giving reasons to support their answers. Alternatively, you can divide the class into three groups: Jeffersonians (Anti-Federalists), Hamiltonians (Federalists), and judges. You could then ask the Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians to debate each other about the question "How much liberty is enough?" with the judges ultimately deciding whose arguments were more persuasive.

Quotations:

"It has been so often said, as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the Confederation to enforce anything, for example, contributions of money. It was not necessary to give them that power expressly, for they have it by the law of nature. When two parties make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it." —Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Edward Carrington, 1787

"Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice?" —Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers , Section 6, 1788

After the debates, facilitate a class discussion framed by any or all of these questions:

• On what issue are these two philosophical positions opposed?
• How is the American government structured to offer a compromise between these two positions?
• What was the historical context in which the U.S. Constitution was developed? What factors had the most influence on how these issues of sovereignty and liberty played out?
• Do you think the same debate today would have similar or different results? Why?

Emphasize the importance of past experience (a.k.a. history) in influencing people's decisions about the future.

For a more detailed analysis of some of the models of representative government proposed and issues deliberated during the debates of the Constitutional Convention, see companion EDSITEment lesson plans, The Constitutional Convention: Four Founding Fathers You May Never Have Met and The Constitutional Convention: What the Founding Fathers Said .

Activity 3. State vs. Federal Government: Division of Power

Tell students that now it is time to examine the balance of governmental power as set up by the Constitution. Make a three-column chart with one column labeled "State," one labeled "Federal," and one labeled "Both." Ask students to brainstorm a list of powers held by the state government and the federal government and document these on the chart. Place powers shared by both state and federal government in the column labeled "Both."

Next, show students the explanation of " Federal Versus State Government " from Ben's Guide to Government for Kids . You can show this page using a projector or print it out for distribution if access to the required technology is not available. Ask selected students to read sections of the text aloud. Then consider the chart of governmental powers featured on the page. Ask students if they can think of any other powers that are not on the list. For instance, providing education (which is part of providing general welfare) is shared, though mostly delegated to state and local governments. Discuss why particular powers might be placed where they are.

Next, view " National Government " and " State Government " and proceed with an overview of the structure of the U.S. government system. Continue asking students to take turns reading aloud. Follow the hyperlinked text as appropriate for your students. Ask questions about vocabulary and concepts that might be unfamiliar to your students. Use the links at the bottom of the page to review each branch of government in more detail. Check your students' understanding by asking open-ended questions such as these:

• What is the relationship between state and federal governments in the U.S.? How are they similar? How are they different? Who has more power?
• What are the advantages of a federal government in which power is divided between national and state governments? What are the advantages of a centralized government (as in France or Great Britain) where all the power rests with the national government?
• Why did the "Founding Fathers" ultimately decide on a federal government?
• What kinds of laws do states make? What kinds of laws does the federal government make? Why?
• What might happen if a state could override a federal law, as Thomas Jefferson once suggested?
• What issues or conflicts might arise from divisions of power between state and federal governments? Use examples.

To make sure students understand the structure of the federal government, you can distribute copies of the diagram of the U.S. Government found on the " Branches of Government " page linked to the text " U.S. Government Manual ." You may also want to review " State Government " page of the Ben's Guide for grades 3-5 for a brief mention of the structure of state and local government systems. The glossary can help students understand unfamiliar terms.

• Explain that improvements did not stop with the original articles of the Constitution. Distribute to all students copies of the Bill of Rights  (available through  America's Founding Documents  at the National Archives website). Ask students to choose the article that they believe to be most important and write a paragraph explaining why.
• Divide students into two groups — Federalists and Anti-Federalists — and ask them to debate each other about whether or not federal government should reign supreme over state government. Make sure they understand the issues of the times, particularly the strong reaction against British control over the colonies and the differing economies of the northern and southern states.
• Test students on selected vocabulary from the glossary of Ben's Guide to Government for Kids or another appropriate source.
• Ask students to fill out a diagram of the U.S. government with selected blank spaces.

Materials & Media

The federalist debates: balancing power between state and federal governments: worksheet 1, related on edsitement, the federalist and anti-federalist debates on diversity and the extended republic, the constitutional convention: four founding fathers you may never have met, jefferson vs. franklin: revolutionary philosophers, the constitutional convention: what the founding fathers said.

The Debate Over the Judicial Branch

Antifederalists viewed the federal judiciary as a source of danger to individual liberty, the state judiciaries, and the future existence of the states themselves. The Constitution guaranteed jury trials in criminal cases, but it said nothing about civil cases. Thus, Antifederalists were concerned that the judicial power of the United States would compromise the right to jury trials in civil cases. They also noted that in criminal cases, juries of vicinage (local juries) were not guaranteed. This meant that individuals might need to travel distances of hundreds of miles to federal courts placing undue hardship on them. In cases that would come before the Supreme Court, travel could entail thousands of miles. Additionally, Antifederalists worried that the jurisdiction of the federal courts was too broad, and as federal power grew, which they believed was inevitable, more cases would be taken to federal courts rather than state courts, thus reducing the importance of state judiciaries. Since federal judges would be the interpreters of the ambiguities of the Constitution, the federal courts would accrue more power as they allowed federal power to expand at state expense.

Federalists responded that of the three branches, the judicial branch was “least dangerous,” because it only had the power of judgment. They denied that jury trials were always necessary or were endangered, either by the silence of the Constitution on civil cases or by the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts in matters of fact. They defended the jurisdiction of the federal courts as the only means to provide justice in foreign and interstate cases, and impose uniform obedience to the Constitution and federal law.

Federalists viewed the courts as the intermediary between the people and Congress and the Presidency. The courts, through judicial review, would uphold the Constitution against attempts by Congress or the President to enlarge their powers. As such, the judiciary was a protector of the people, not a danger to their liberties.

Among the issues that were not heavily debated, was judicial review since both recognized the judiciary would exercise this power under the new Constitution. The precedents of courts exercising the power of judicial review were well known to the Founders. In England the Law Lords served as a court of last resort. In both the Colonial Era and Post-Revolutionary Period, legislative councils continued this tradition. In New York, the Court of Error and Impeachment had review power. Thus, the idea of judicial review was not a new or radical idea during the Founding Period. However, during the ratification period, the debate centered on whether judicial review was synonymous with judicial supremacy. Federal courts in the proposed Constitution were uniquely independent from the other branches of government. This independence when coupled with the power of judicial review was central in the debates between Federalists and Antifederalists. Publius in The Federalist 78 suggested that having judicial review was advantageous because it afforded federal judges “an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humours in the society.” Antifederalist Brutus argued that federal judges would be “independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”

(F) Federalist Essays/Speeches (AF) Antifederalist Essays/Speeches

Criminal Cases

• Agrippa V, Massachusetts Gazette , 11 December 1787 (AF)

Decisions Not Reviewable

• Brutus XI, New York Journal , 31 January 1788 (AF)
• A Well-Wisher to Good Government, Virginia Independent Chronicle , 18 June 1788 (AF)

Equity Powers

• The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, Pennsylvania Packet , 18 December 1787 (AF)
• Brutus XIII, New York Journal , 21 February 1788 (AF)
• George Mason Speech: Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788 (AF)

Inferior Courts

• Cassius II: To Richard Henry Lee, Esquire, Virginia Independent Chronicle , 9 April 1788 (F)
• Edmund Pendleton Speech: Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (F)
• Brutus I, New York Journal , 18 October 1787 (AF)

Judicial Independence

• Publius: The Federalist 78, New York, 28 May 1788 (F)
• Publius: The Federalist 81, New York, 28 May 1788 (F)
• Brutus XII, New York Journal , 7 February 1788 (AF)
• Brutus XV, New York Journal , 20 March 1788 (AF)

Jurisdiction

• Aristides: Remarks on the Proposed Plan of a Federal Government , 31 January 1788 (F)
• Hugh Williamson Speech: Edenton, N.C., New York Daily Advertiser , 25-27 February 1788 (F)
• Publicola: An Address to the Freemen of North Carolina, State Gazette of North Carolina , 20 March 1788 (F)
• John Marshall Speech: Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (F)
• Publius: The Federalist 80, New York, 28 May 1788 (F)
• James Madison Speech: Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (F)
• A Democratic Federalist, Pennsylvania Herald , 17 October 1787 (AF)
• Centinel II, Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal , 24 October 1787 (AF)
• Boston American Herald , 7 January 1788 (AF)
• Luther Martin: Genuine Information X, Baltimore Maryland Gazette , 1 February 1788 (AF)
• Brutus XIV, New York Journal , 28 February 1788 (AF)
• Patrick Henry Speech: Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (AF)

Jury Trials

• An American Citizen IV: On the Federal Government, Philadelphia Independent Gazette , 21 October 1787 (F)
• One of the Middling-Interest, Massachusetts Centinel , 28 November 1787 (F)
• An Old Whig III, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer , 20 October 1787 (AF)
• Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican , New York, 2 May 1788 —excerpt from Letter XV (18 January 1788) (AF)

Location and Access to Courts

• Patrick Henry Speech: Virginia Convention, 5 June 1788 (AF)

Organization of the Judiciary

• A Landholder V, Connecticut Courant , 3 December 1788 (F)
• Federal Farmer: Letters to the Republican , New York, 8 November 1787 —excerpts from Letter II (9 October 1787), Letter III (10 October), Letter IV (12 October) (AF)

Review Powers

• James Wilson Speech: Pennsylvania Convention, 1 December 1787 (F)
• Oliver Ellsworth Speech: Connecticut Convention, 7 January 1788 (F)
• Publius: The Federalist 79, New York, 28 May 1788 (F)

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview

Constitution Daily Blog

• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, the anti-federalists and their important role during the ratification fight.

September 27, 2017 | by Ugonna Eze

On this day in 1787, the debate over the newly written Constitution began in the press after an anonymous writer in the New York Journal warned citizens that the document was not all that it seemed.

Most Americans know of the Federalist Papers, the collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Madison, in defense of the U.S. Constitution. Fewer know of the Anti-Federalist Papers authored by Cato and other incognito writers, their significance to American political history, or their responsibility for producing the Bill of Rights.

When the Constitution was drafted in the summer of 1787, its ratification was far from certain; it still needed to be ratified by at least nine of the 13 state legislatures. The failure of the Articles of Confederation made it clear that America needed a new form of government. Yet there was worry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. The original draft of the Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights, declared all state laws subservient to federal ones, and created a king-like office in the presidency. At the Philadelphia Convention and in the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued against having a Bill of Rights, fearing that they would limit the people’s rights.

Opposition to the Constitution after the Philadelphia Convention began with Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason, the “Three Dissenters” who refused to sign the document. It then grew to include Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee, heroes of the Revolutionary War who objected to the Constitution’s consolidation of power. In time, the various opponents to the new Constitution came to be known as the Anti-Federalists. Their collected speeches, essays, and pamphlets later became known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”

While each of the Anti-Federalists had their own view for what a new constitution for the United States should look like, they generally agreed on a few things. First, they believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of states. Second, they believed that the unitary president eerily resembled a monarch and that that resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation’s capital. Third, they believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. Lastly, they believed that without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous.

These arguments created a powerful current against adopting the Constitution in each of the states. In state legislatures across the country, opponents of the Constitution railed against the extensive powers it granted the federal government and its detraction from the republican governments of antiquity. In Virginia, Patrick Henry, author of the famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, called the proposed constitution, “A revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.” In the Essays of Brutus, an anonymous author worried that without any limitations, the proposed Constitution would make “the state governments… dependent on the will of the general government for their existence.”

The Anti-Federalists mobilized against the Constitution in state legislatures across the country.

Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia and New York, three crucial states, made ratification of the Constitution contingent on a Bill of Rights. In Massachusetts, arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists erupted in a physical brawl between Elbridge Gerry and Francis Dana. Sensing that Anti-Federalist sentiment would sink ratification efforts, James Madison reluctantly agreed to draft a list of rights that the new federal government could not encroach.

The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens. They were fashioned after the English Bill of Rights and George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights. They include the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process under the law, and protections against cruel and unusual punishments. To accommodate Anti-Federalist concerns of excessive federal power, the Bill of Rights also reserves any power that is not given to the federal government to the states and to the people.

Since its adoption, the Bill of Rights has become the most important part of the Constitution for most Americans. In Supreme Court cases, the Amendments are debated more frequently than the Articles. They have been cited to protect the free speech of Civil Rights activists, protect Americans from unlawful government surveillance, and grant citizens Miranda rights during arrest. It is impossible to know what our republic would look like today without the persistence of the Anti-Federalists over two hundred years ago.

Ugonna Eze is a Fellow for Constitutional Studies at the National Constitution Center.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

The Federalist Papers

By alexander hamilton , james madison , john jay, the federalist papers summary and analysis of essay 1.

Alexander Hamilton begins this brilliant discourse on the Constitution of the United States of America by asking his readers to consider a new Constitution because they have experienced the inefficiencies of the present form of government. He pronounces that the people are in a unique position to answer the most important political question of all: ­ "whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice." If the people are up to the challenge, their actions will have great worldwide significance.

He proceeds to show that many people will oppose the Constitution for a variety of reasons, especially if they benefit from the current form of government. Hamilton, however, is not going to address the motives of those who oppose the Constitution; rather, his intent is to make arguments that favor the Constitution. He addresses imagined critics who would question his willingness to listen to other arguments because he has already made up his mind to support the Constitution. He insists that, while his motives for urging ratification of the Constitution are personal, he remains receptive to the best arguments.

Finally, he outlines the specific issues that he will address in the Federalist Papers: political prosperity and the Constitution; the inadequacy of the present government to preserve the union; the necessity of a strong and energetic government; the Constitution and its relationship to republican principles of government; the similarity of the proposed Constitution to the New York state constitution; and the protection of liberty and property under the proposed government. In addition, he is attempting to effectively answer serious arguments brought against ratification.

Hamilton concludes the first section of The Federalist Papers by telling the people that it might seem unnecessary to plead for a strong union—indeed, it may even seem as though the country were too large to establish a national system of government. However, he says, in the end, the choice the people must face is whether to adopt the Constitution or else see the end of a united government.

Before beginning a more general analysis of Alexander Hamilton 's remarks, it is necessary to provide the background of the political theory of educated men in the United States in this time period. First, most educated men, especially those who were at the heart of governing the new country, were extremely familiar with the republics of Ancient Greece and Rome (for example, see John Adam's book Defense of the Constitution , published at the same time as The Federalist Papers ). From this background, the primary fear was that while a republican government was desirable in order to defend liberty, it could be impossible to enact such a government over a large geographic area, such as the United States, because it had never been accomplished before. The conventional wisdom was that this problem had always been the downfall of republics (for instance, the fall of the Roman Empire). The other major pitfall of republics had been class warfare, something that the Founding Fathers had seen in the recent Shay's Rebellion.

More specifically regarding the text, the introduction to The Federalist Papers contains the outline of Hamilton's "argument," the basic points that he wishes to discuss for ratifying the new Constitution. He also explains his motives and those of his cohorts, clarifying that this will not be a debate between two sides of the argument, but rather a coherent examination of the strengths of and necessity of the new Constitution. In this first article, therefore, the most important part is the outline Hamilton provides, enabling the reader to classify the remaining 84 papers with ease.

It is also interesting to note that the "world-wide" fame that Hamilton anticipated the Constitution would have really came to pass: the United States Constitution that Hamilton defended has become one of the most copied and admired documents in the history of civilization. Indeed, The Federalist Papers itself was published in Spanish in 1811 by the Venezualan Manuel Garcia de Sana, along with copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In addition, The Federalist Papers influenced movements in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, and Europe. Not only did Hamilton's predictions come true, but his very words were also influential far beyond the original thirteen colonies.

Hamilton, perhaps more than any of the founders, believed in the future greatness of America; he believed that this nation could be one of power and strength, and he believed that such power and strength, far from corrupting the nation's purpose or the rights of individuals, was necessary to realize the former and protect the latter. The very use of the word "empire" in this paper is very telling. Characteristically, he looks ahead: he "dips into the future and sees the United States as a world power." While this might not seem odd to the modern reader, in 1788, America was extremely vulnerable to European conquest and domination. His vision for America is even more remarkable under these circumstances.

The Federalist Papers Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for The Federalist Papers is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

how are conflictstoo often decided in unstable government? Whose rights are denied when this happens?

In a typical non-democratic government with political instability, the conflicts are often decided by the person highest in power, who abuse powers or who want to seize power. Rival parties fight each other to the detriment of the country.

How Madison viewed human nature?

Madison saw depravity in human nature, but he saw virtue as well. His view of human nature may have owed more to John Locke than to John Calvin. In any case, as Saul K. Padover asserted more than a half-century ago, Madison often appeared to steer...

How arguable and provable is the author of cato 4 claim

What specific claim are you referring to?

Study Guide for The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers study guide contains a biography of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About The Federalist Papers
• The Federalist Papers Summary
• The Federalist Papers Video
• Character List

Essays for The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.

• A Close Reading of James Madison's The Federalist No. 51 and its Relevancy Within the Sphere of Modern Political Thought
• Lock, Hobbes, and the Federalist Papers
• Comparison of Federalist Paper 78 and Brutus XI
• The Paradox of the Republic: A Close Reading of Federalist 10
• Manipulation of Individual Citizen Motivations in the Federalist Papers

Lesson Plan for The Federalist Papers

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to The Federalist Papers
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• The Federalist Papers Bibliography

E-Text of The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers e-text contains the full text of The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.

• FEDERALIST. Nos. 1-5
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 6-10
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 11-15
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 16-20
• FEDERALIST. Nos. 21-25

Wikipedia Entries for The Federalist Papers

• Introduction
• Structure and content
• Judicial use
• Complete list

PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED J. Edgar Hoover’s 50-Year Career of Blackmail, Entrapment, and Taking Down Communist Spies

The Encyclopedia: One Book’s Quest to Hold the Sum of All Knowledge PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED

Federalist Arguments for Ratifying the Constitution

What are federalist arguments for ratifying the Constitution? An argument there were three basic issues, whether the Constitution would maintain the republican government, the national government would have too much power, and the bill of rights was needed in the Constitution.

The new Constitution was set to take effect as soon as nine states ratified it. By 1788, nine states had. But supporters of the Constitution were concerned that New York, a large and important state, had not. Among those concerned were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton , and John Jay. Under the pseudonym Publius, these men wrote a series of articles known collectively as The Federalist, first published one at a time in New York newspapers. (Although perhaps better known as The Federalist Papers ever since Clinton Rossiter published an edition of them under that name, they were originally called simply The Federalist.)

To persuade opponents of the Constitution—the Antifederalists—to change their minds, the authors of The Federalist wanted to reassure them that the proposed federal government would not compromise the states’ rights of self-government. In Federalist #45, Madison explained that the powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution were “few and defined,” while those remaining with the states were “numerous and indefinite.” Federal activity would be confined almost exclusively to foreign affairs. The powers reserved to the states, on the other hand, “will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Additional Resources About Revolution and Colonies

What is federalism and how does it work, fun facts about george washington, what was the american revolution, benjamin franklin’s inventions, cite this article.

• How Much Can One Individual Alter History? More and Less...
• Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? We Have Some Answers
• Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb
• Is Russia Communist Today? Find Out Here!
• Phonetic Alphabet: How Soldiers Communicated
• How Many Americans Died in WW2? Here Is A Breakdown

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Last Thing This Supreme Court Could Do to Shock Us

There will be no more self-soothing after this..

For three long years, Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises that when the rubber hit the road, even the ultraconservative Federalist Society justices of the Roberts court would put democracy before party whenever they were finally confronted with the legal effort to hold Donald Trump accountable for Jan. 6. There were promising signs: They had, after all, refused to wade into the Trumpian efforts to set aside the election results in 2020. They had, after all, hewed to a kind of sanity in batting away Trumpist claims about presidential records (with the lone exception of Clarence Thomas, too long marinated in the Ginni-scented Kool-Aid to be capable of surprising us, but he was just one vote). We promised ourselves that there would be cool heads and grand bargains and that even though the court might sometimes help Trump in small ways, it would privilege the country in the end. We kept thinking that at least for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts , the voice of reasoned never-Trumpers might still penetrate the Fox News fog. We told ourselves that at least six justices, and maybe even seven, of the most MAGA-friendly court in history would still want to ensure that this November’s elections would not be the last in history. Political hacks they may be, but they were not lawless ones.

On Thursday, during oral arguments in Trump v. United States , the Republican-appointed justices shattered those illusions. This was the case we had been waiting for, and all was made clear—brutally so. These justices donned the attitude of cynical partisans, repeatedly lending legitimacy to the former president’s outrageous claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. To at least five of the conservatives, the real threat to democracy wasn’t Trump’s attempt to overturn the election—but the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute him for the act. These justices fear that it is Trump’s prosecution for election subversion that will “destabilize” democracy, requiring them to read a brand-new principle of presidential immunity into a Constitution that guarantees nothing of the sort. They evinced virtually no concern for our ability to continue holding free and fair elections that culminate in a peaceful transfer of power. They instead offered endless solicitude for the former president who fought that transfer of power.

However the court disposes of Trump v. U.S. , the result will almost certainly be precisely what the former president craves: more delays, more hearings, more appeals—more of everything but justice . This was not a legitimate claim from the start, but a wild attempt by Trump’s attorneys to use his former role as chief executive of the United States to shield himself from the consequences of trying to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. After so much speculation that these reasonable, rational jurists would surely dispose of this ridiculous case quickly and easily, Thursday delivered a morass of bad-faith hand-wringing on the right about the apparently unbearable possibility that a president might no longer be allowed to wield his powers of office in pursuit of illegal ends. Just as bad, we heard a constant minimization of Jan. 6, for the second week in a row , as if the insurrection were ancient history, and history that has since been dramatically overblown, presumably for Democrats’ partisan aims.

We got an early taste of this minimization in Trump v. Anderson , the Colorado case about removing Trump from the ballot. The court didn’t have the stomach to discuss the violence at the Capitol in its sharply divided decision, which found for Trump ; indeed, the majority barely mentioned the events of Jan. 6 at all when rejecting Colorado’s effort to bar from the ballot an insurrectionist who tried to steal our democracy. But we let that one be, because we figured special counsel Jack Smith would ride to the rescue. Smith has indicted Trump on election subversion charges related to Jan. 6, and the biggest obstacle standing between the special counsel and a trial has been the former president’s outlandish claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges as a result of his having been president at the time. Specifically, Trump alleges that his crusade to overturn the election constituted “official acts” that are immune from criminal liability under a heretofore unknown constitutional principle that the chief executive is quite literally above the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in February that the president does not have blanket or absolute immunity for all actions taken in office, including “official” acts performed under the guise of executing the law (for example, Trump’s attempt to weaponize the DOJ against election results under the pretense of investigating fraud). The D.C. Circuit’s emphatic, cross-ideological decision should have been summarily affirmed by SCOTUS within days. Instead, the justices set it for arguments two months down the road—a bad omen, to put it mildly . Even then, many court watchers held out hope that Thursday morning’s oral arguments were to be the moment for the nine justices of the Supreme Court to finally indicate their readiness to take on Trump, Trumpism, illiberalism, and slouching fascism.

It was not to be. Justice Samuel Alito best captured the spirit of arguments when he asked gravely “what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society” (good start!), then answered his own question: total immunity for criminal presidents (oh, dear). Indeed, anything but immunity would, he suggested, encourage presidents to commit more crimes to stay in office: “Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Never mind that the president in question did not leave office peacefully and is not sitting quietly in retirement but is instead running for presidential office once again. No, if we want criminal presidents to leave office when they lose, we have to let them commit crimes scot-free. If ever a better articulation of the legal principle “Don’t make me hit you again” has been proffered at an oral argument, it’s hard to imagine it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke to this absurdity when she responded in what could only be heard as a cri de coeur: “Stable democratic society needs good faith of public officials,” she said. “That good faith assumes that they will follow the law.” The justice noted that despite all the protections in place, a democracy can sometimes “potentially fail.” She concluded: “In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”

But it was probably too late to make this plea, because by that point we had heard both Alito and Gorsuch opine that presidents must be protected at all costs from the whims of overzealous deep state prosecutors brandishing “vague” criminal statutes. We heard Kavanaugh opine mindlessly on the independent counsel statute and how mean it is to presidents, reading extensively from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a case arguing that independent counsels are unconstitutional. (Yes, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr , the independent counsel.) If you’re clocking a trend here, it’s gender. Just as was the case in Anderson , it’s the women justices doing the second-shift work here: both probing the thorny constitutional and criminal questions and signaling a refusal to tank democracy over abstractions and deflections. As was the case in the EMTALA arguments, it’s the women who understand what it looks like to cheat death.

Is the president, Sotomayor asked, immune from prosecution if he orders the military to assassinate a political rival? Yes, said John Sauer, who represented Trump—though it “depends on the circumstances.” Could the president, Justice Elena Kagan asked, order the military to stage a coup? Yes, Sauer said again, depending on the circumstances. To which Kagan tartly replied that Sauer’s insistence on specifying the “circumstances” boiled down to “Under my test, it’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” (Cue polite laughter in the chamber.)

This shameless, maximalist approach should have drawn anger from the conservative justices—indignation, at least, that Sauer took them for such easy marks. But it turns out that he calibrated his terrible arguments just right. The cynicism on display was truly breathtaking: Alito winkingly implied to Michael Dreeben, representing Smith, that we all know that Justice Department lawyers are political hacks, right? Roberts mocked Dreeben for saying “There’s no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith.”

The conservative justices are so in love with their own voices and so convinced of their own rectitude that they monologued about how improper it was for Dreeben to keep talking about the facts of this case, as opposed to the “abstract” principles at play. “I’m talking about the future!” Kavanaugh declared at one point to Dreeben, pitching himself not as Trump’s human shield but as a principled defender of the treasured constitutional right of all presidents to do crime. (We’re sure whatever rule he cooks up will apply equally to Democratic presidents, right?) Kavanaugh eventually landed on the proposition that prosecutors may charge presidents only under criminal statutes that explicitly state they can be applied to the president. Which, as Sotomayor pointed out, would mean no charges everywhere, because just a tiny handful of statutes are stamped with the label “CAN BE APPLIED TO PRESIDENT.”

The words bold and fearless action were repeated on a loop today, as a kind of mantra of how effective presidents must be free to act quickly and decisively to save democracy from the many unanticipated threats it faces. And yet the court—which has been asked to take bold and fearless action to deter the person who called Georgia’s secretary of state to demand that he alter the vote count, and threatened to fire DOJ officials who would not help steal an election—is backing away from its own duty. The prospect of a criminal trial for a criminal president shocked and appalled five men: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch suggested that Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional; meanwhile, Roberts sounded eager at times to handle the case just a hair more gracefully: by cutting out its heart by preventing the jury from hearing about “official acts” (which lie at the center of the alleged conspiracy). Justice Amy Coney Barrett was far more measured, teasing out a compromise with Dreeben that would compel the trial court to tell the jury it could not impose criminal liability for these “official” acts, only “private ones.” Remember, drawing that line would require months of hearings and appeals, pushing any trial into 2025 or beyond. The president who tried to steal the most recent election is running in the next one, which is happening in mere months.

The liberal justices tried their best to make the case that justice required denying Trump’s sweeping immunity claim, permitting the trial to move forward, and sorting out lingering constitutional issues afterward, as virtually all other criminal defendants must do. They got little traction. Everyone on that bench was well aware that the entire nation was listening to arguments; that the whole nation wants to understand whether Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election was an existential threat to democracy or a lark. Five justices sent the message, loud and clear, that they are far more worried about Trump’s prosecution at the hands of the deep-state DOJ than about his alleged crimes, which were barely mentioned. This trial will almost certainly face yet more delays. These delays might mean that its subject could win back the presidency in the meantime and render the trial moot. But the court has now signaled that nothing he did was all that serious and that the danger he may pose is not worth reining in. The real threats they see are the ones Trump himself shouts from the rooftops: witch hunts and partisan Biden prosecutors. These men have picked their team. The rest hardly matters.