Based on your readings in the text, especially in chapter two, you should have noted the arguments between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists in relation to the ratification of the Constitution.  Some of the general arguments and beliefs of the two sides are summarised in the chart attached below.  Please post your responses to this chart. 

Please state whether you find the arguments and beliefs of one side to be more persuasive than the other, and why.  Please try to elaborate and use examples to make your point clear.

The length should be more than 250 words. You should be able to summarize your initial thoughts in a few paragraphs.  Feel free to use examples to make a point.  We have no shortage in recent news, or you can draw on other areas to illustrate your point. There is no right answer. What I am looking for is simply your own evaluations of the two positions.  

Federalists (Democratic) Republicans

View of Man man’s dominant interest is self-

interest; the key is to turn this self-
interest to an advantage (reasoning
in Federalist #10)

man has corrupt elements, but

reason triumphs: “Nature has
implanted in our breasts a love
of others, a sense of duty to
them, a moral instinct” – T.
Jefferson

View of ‘The People’ distrusted the masses somewhat:
“people are turbulent and changing,

they seldom judge or determine
right” – A. Hamilton

public education and free
government enables people to

make good choices in
elections

Major fear instability/anarchy: Tyranny of the
Majority/people; mobs looting,

burning mortgages (Shay’s rebellion)
and intimidating people; business

cannot thrive in this environment

domination: distrusted the
powerful few – those who are

in office are a bigger threat;
feared an “elected king”

View of government government can be a positive thing,
especially in helping the economy to
grow; wanted to strengthen the

national government to assure
freedom, secure property &
guarantee independence

a necessary evil which needs
to be limited and constantly
monitored and reviewed

View of States state’s rights were divisive, used to
promote loca l self interests

states should have all the
powers not immediately
necessary to the national
government

View of the
Constitution

broad interpretation, so the
government will have enough power
to keep order

narrow interpretation, lest the
government have unrestricted
power

View of economy saw the U.S. as a potential great
power, but needed to have a steady,

unif ied country and a s table
economy; wanted taxes raised and

war debts paid to create a powerful
trading state

didn’t disagree, but tended to
look west at the agricultural

potential of the undeveloped
lands, since most people
would make living in
agriculture

View of democracy distrusted direct democracy;
pragmatic businessmen (who called

for the Constitutional Convention in
1787)

believed in wisdom of the
people; idealists?

View of the future future in trade, large companies,
commerce & trade/mercantilism;
urban society

small, independent land
owners; rural society

Chapter summary

The Constitution of the United States is a reflection of the colonial and revolutionary experiences of the early Americans. Freedom from abusive government was a reason for the colonies’ revolt against British rule, but the English tradition also provided ideas about government, power, and freedom that were expressed in the Constitution and, earlier, in the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution was designed in part to provide for a limited government in which political power would be confined to proper uses. The framers wanted to ensure that the government they were creating would not itself be a threat to freedom. To this end, they confined the national government to expressly granted powers and also denied it certain specific powers. Other prohibitions on government were later added to the Constitution in the form of stated guarantees of individual liberties in the Bill of Rights. The most significant constitutional provision for limited government, however, was a separation of powers among the three branches. The powers given to each branch enable it to act as a check on the exercise of power by the other two, an arrangement that during the nation’s history has in fact served as a barrier to abuses of power.

The Constitution, however, made no mention of how the powers and limits of government were to be judged in practice. In its historic ruling in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court assumed the authority to review the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions and to declare them unconstitutional and thus invalid.

The framers of the Constitution, respecting the idea of self-government but distrusting popular majorities, devised a system of government that they felt would temper popular opinion and slow its momentum so that the public’s “true interest” (which includes a regard for the rights and interests of the minority) would guide public policy. Different methods were advanced for selecting the president, the members of the House and the Senate, and federal judges as a means of insulating political power against momentary majorities.

Since the adoption of the Constitution, the public gradually has assumed more direct control of its representatives, particularly through measures that affect the way officeholders are chosen. Presidential popular voting (linked to the Electoral College), direct election of senators, and primary elections are among the devices aimed at strengthening the majority’s influence. These developments are rooted in the idea, deeply held by ordinary Americans, that the people must have substantial direct influence over their representatives if government is to serve their interests.