Sample Paper on Federalist

Question 1

The Federalist Farmer together with Brutus was generally considered as individuals who were against federalism. The Anti-Federalist group had the belief that there existed a connection between the preservation of individual liberty and the states. This is the reason why they thought about ratification of the constitution, they became worried of what to expect. For instance, Robert Whitehill who was among the greatest Anti-Federalists had the fear that the national Constitution, which had been proposed, would be a way of wiping out the constitutions of different States (Rousseu1). He also feared that it would eradicate the people’s liberty.  The Anti-Federalists, therefore, thought that it was their place to preserve their liberty and that of the people especially the poor individuals in Commonwealth of Virginia. They could look into their properties, liberties and lives in this way. At the same time, they thought that it was their place to secure their lives, properties and liberties. Based on their understanding the only way they could achieve this is by rebelling against the foreign nations and defending the States that were weak against those that had larger ambitions.

The Anti-Federalists also thought that the constitution would give the government an external strength that would prevent them from managing any of the principles that they shall have set. In the end, larger states would be less governed while at the same time freedom would only extend to a small territory where there is homogenous population (Rousseu 4). They also feared that there would be no genuine government equality in large states making them remote. The Anti-Federalist also feared that the government will forcefully impose crude uniform rule of diversity that would end up creating inequity and hardship for several parts of the nation.

The Anti-Federalist also argued that having a large republic which was among the issues in the constitution would make people have less confidence in legislature, become more suspicious of the government ambitious views, become jealous of the measures that they try to adopt and will not be able to support any measures that they try to adopt. They, therefore, demanded for a small republic that would ensure direct democracy while making the government more responsible.

The other argument that the Anti-Federalists made was that there was a possibility of the people’s characters to be affected by the laws and the government if the constitution was ratified (Rousseu 4). They believed that there was a strong correlation between the government spirit and that of the people. The Federal Farmer’s deepest desire was to have a state where they can cultivate and cherish liberty. They believed that the republican citizenry needed to be independent minded and free; meaning that all the people’s interests needed to be similar. In case the interests clashed, the government operations would be retarded which in the end would promote the public good. The Federalists Farmers wanted a society which was homogeneous in nature, where there were no forms of extremeness of influence, education and wealth.  Some Anti-Federalists such as Mercy Warren were worried that the ratification of the constitution would not preserve the republican spirit of the Americans. She instead foresaw a society that was walling with high levels of separation.

The Anti-Federalists were also concerned regarding the ways in which their religious convictions will be maintained with a new constitution. The Federalist Farmers were mainly conservatives thus wanted religion to be used to guard their morals. They only believed in the ideas of reward and punishment. According to them, they believed that religion would be taken for granted by the constitution thus making God’s glory subservient to the interests of temporary men (Rousseu 4).

Question 2

Many of the federalists were in great defense of the Constitution because they believed that the government had objects and spheres that were different. The main argument that they provided was that the constitution would help in adjusting the future while preserving a healthy balance in the nation. The reason the federalist are taking their project to be so important is because they believed that the only solution to the American external and internal problems were the American government which would be founded on the equilibrium among states and Unions (Rousseu 9). However, regardless of this, there was a strong need for having a properly empowered and organized American republic which the constitution could help achieve.

At the same time, they believed that an American republic which is organized properly under the Constitution will not only have the strength to acquire commercial prosperity but also strong defense. It would also enable the government to conduct internal work of the free republican government in a better way compared to other states.

The Federalist viewed that the main threat to republics was having a nation that was actuated and united by individual passion, interests and adverse citizen rights. This would probably lead to the resistance of anarchy and authority. Having a popular government will tyrannize many people who are covered by the law.  Nevertheless, Madison argued that whenever there is a government, regardless of which kind it is, there is always a danger of oppression (Rousseu11). This is contrary to what the federalists believed that the constitution would make America the happiest nation

However, according to the Federalists, this can be prevented easily by the government attracting the people’s confidence. They can end up supporting their virtues, which in the end will admit to be desirable. The government will ensure that it coerce its good aspects of obedience rather than using any form of force. The government can keep individual peace while at the same time protecting their property and promoting the nation’s prosperity. In the end, people will end up respecting and obeying their government, which will promote public and private morality. The solution to the problem according to the Federalist includes representation, which they see as an opportunity. Representation will make the large republic possible while at the same time secure the benefits of the republic. It is the people who will choose whom they want to represent them in the government which will promote natural aristocracy.

According to the Federalist, democracy might actually make this threat worse. They mention the case of Thomas Wait’s ideas regarding subjecting the entire American continent to democracy to be futile (Rousseu11). However, the federalists believe that there is no way in which little democracies can be ruled by large number of prayers. This is because majority of people across the world act mainly out of interest and passion. The aim of Constitution was not meant to transform or stifle individual motives by ruling them by prayer; instead, it is aimed at channeling these motives into direction that would bring about the good of the entire public.

Question 3

The main grievance that Jefferson has outlined is the complaints by Americans, which he considered as unwarrantable unsurpations and encroachments regarding the laws, and rights that God gave them to be independent and equal to everyone. According to Jefferson, the main reasons as to why the British decided to come to America was because they believed that their ancestors were the initial and free inhabitants of the lands (Jefferson 1). They, therefore, has the rights that is provided to them by nature which is free to all men. It is by chance and not by choice that they are in quest for habiting America where they can establish a new society to promote the happiness of the public. At the same time, the British split their lands in order to settle on the American lands; they managed to fight for them and conquer which gives them the right to get hold of it. At the same time, the Great Britain helped the Americans to fight their enemies, which give them the right to hold the lands. The Americans never paid their ancestors any single shilling before the colonies were established (Jefferson 2). The British, therefore, stand a chance to benefit from the American commerce.

Jefferson believes that America is a free land that was not conquered by the William and it was not surrendered to him together with his successors. Possession of the lands therefore does not lie within a specific group. The Americans had taken advantage of the British because of the fact that the ancestors were not lawyers but farmers thus not in a position to fight for their rights to own the lands. The British were ignorant to the point that they were easily persuaded to believe all the fictitious principles that the Americans told them regarding the crown lands. They believed the fact that the purpose and nature of the institutions that the society had circumscribed around them which were within the limits of the society and subject to different allotment. Only those who fear are flattered but that is not an American art thus the reason for not allowing the British to take part in the process (Jefferson 6). Nevertheless, providing praise to individuals who are not appreciating or talking about human nature is not worth it.

In order to prove his points in detail, Jefferson decided to use the Lockean and Hobbesian political philosophy in his argument. He used the concept of the throne of heirs a story that is well situated in the bible. According to Locke, Adam despite being given the power to protect the lands meaning that he had the natural right over them did not possess any authority over it and neither would his heirs (Locke 11). It is therefore wrong for the entire government to use certain forms of force and violence to settle issues that pertains to land. There is a need for equality whereby no one has more authority or power over the other person since the creatures of the same status and species were given authority by God to have advantages over nature. It means that no one should dominate or have sovereign power over nature (Locke 11). The main argument here is that regardless of the fact that there are no forms of constraints on the manner in which people behave, every man has the freedom to dispose of their possessions but does not have the liberty to destroy it unless there is something, which is nobler that is at stake in this case. Nations such as Europe and America ought not to cause any form of harm to their possessions such as lands or their liberty because they both have legitimate power over their lands.

Question 4

Mark can use Locke’s idea of property to argue that everything in the universe can be owned apart from the universal monarch.  This gives men the right to own any property without any form of agreement that they sign. It is because God gave men the world and at the same time provided them with the same potential and power to use it in the best way possible that can convenience them. Property such as land was provided for people to have comfort while at the same time support their existence on earth (Locke 11). It means that no man is excluded from these rights because they are natural state. Nevertheless, the properties of man’s body accompanied with their works of hand are supposed to be his. This is because they are mixing their labor with their own hands, which is their property, which makes them to fully own it. What Locke was trying to address was that every individual regardless of their place of resident, color or ethnic background has a property that they can protect. The protection of this kind of possession can be liberal and at the same time their life.

Man may share the idea of property whereby each individual has their own, but when it comes to something like animals or plants; it becomes inimical (Locke 13). It means that the things that live on earth are neither personal property nor individual property. However, they have to work hard to own anything that is in the land by using their property such as their hands to till, cultivate, use products or improve them in order to take full ownership of them. In this regard, since they used their property to acquire that thing, they are able to own it in all ways possible. For instance, they can fence the land without acquiring any form of consent from another person. This will enable them to set limits on their property thus preventing the third party from trying to take it in any way or form. However, men want more than they need which has altered the values of things on the land (Locke 15). This is the reason you find that those things that people used to value in life are no longer worth it. However, it is the labor of an individual that outweighs everything while setting limits and values on them in such a way that makes it worth fighting for in all ways possible.

When you look at a nation like America, it cannot be a socialist country because of the fact that majority of things are individual property. People have taken over the lands, animals, plants and several properties by using their labor to toil them. This gives them the right to fight for it and own the property without any question from other people. Being a socialist state means that America’s lands or properties will be owned by everyone. However, it is evident through the American Dream that everyone want a piece of their own property which they can control and have power over it. Many people strive and work hard on a daily basis to have a comfortable and better life and this means that they use their labor or person property such as their hands and brains to achieve this thus preventing the nation from being a socialist country (Federici 25).

At the same time, American government always, strive to ensure that its large population, which comprises of diverse cultures properly, utilizes their large nation. It means that the government is encouraging people to own properties through hard work, which is a way of making everyone safe against their neighbors. When individuals work hard, they have the liberty to protect their property and prevent it from any sources of power or party that wants to take advantage of it (Federici26). In this regard, everything that are natural has a foundation of ownership thus they become the master of themselves while the owners their individual property. Socialism will mean that everything that the people own they will share with each other, which is a principle that is not natural in the American society. There is no way in which Americans can abolish their personal property in order to get into socialism or communism. Based also on the facts that there are different classes of individuals in the US, the means of life is owned or controlled by a specific group of individuals.

Question 5

After going through the texts, the lectures and the discussions in this class, I have learned a lot regarding federalism. Locke’s article has especially enhanced my thinking regarding the issues of property since he has explained them in depth and used easy examples from the bible that provides an in-depth elaboration on the main points. At the same time, Jefferson has also touched on the issues regarding ownership of lands providing perfect reasons why British people needs to be allowed to reside comfortably in America. When an individual use’s Locke’s explanations and viewpoint, it is easy to support Jefferson’s claims because the British people toiled and used a lot of their energy to make America the place it is today. They, therefore, deserve to own part of the property and if this is not possible, they should be given a chance to freely reside in the nation.

At the same time, my views regarding American politics have been impacted in various ways. First, I think that American people are ambitious individuals who will work hard to own their property. On the other hand, in regards to issues of federalism,  the constitution was established to ensure that everyone acquires their rights in the nation and also be protected as they deserves. One idea from the texts that I wish more people would be aware of is regarding property ownership. This is because it is an important part of human life thus the reason for existence of various classes of individuals in the nation. The other thing that I would like them to know is regarding the importance of constitution especially ratification. This is because it acts as a guideline on the ways in which people behaves and acts in a nation. Without the constitution, I believe that a nation such as the US would be without any sense of direction.