The Federalist Papers are an assortment of 85 articles and essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius. These articles and essays were to promote the authorization of the United States constitution. The Anti-Federalist papers was a collection of papers written by Robert Yates, who went under the pseudonym Brutus, and was opposed to the ratification of the Constitution. The two articles that will be analyzed are Federalist paper #51 and Anti-Federalist paper #1 to compare and contrast the viewpoint of Yates and Madison. Lastly, the analysis of these primary sources will answer how the Constitution will lead to a compound republic.
The Anti-Federalist paper #1 is seen as Yates discussing the decision regarding the government that is to be put into play. As an anti-federalist Yates believed that the constitution gave too much power to the federal courts at the expense of the state and local courts. He thought that this was too far for an average citizen to have justice, and therefore, was a proponent of a weaker central government.
In this article, Yates argues that the Federalists are trying to implement a “rigid government” that they are demanding for the citizens to adopt. They believe that the Federalists are attempting to deceive the people by saying that their type of government is without flaw, but bankrupts anyone who doesn’t believe in their government. In essence, Yates is trying to let the people know that under the Federalist government he feels that they would be oppressed and he would rather be a free citizen. Additionally, he hopes that if the people’s liberties are at stake that they ratify it, and if not let it be adopted. In the end, he urges the people to really consider and understand what they want for their future.
The Federalist Paper #51 addresses the checks and balances that can be generated in the government along with separating the power in the national government. As a Federalist, Madison was in favor for the constitution and was a strong proponent from a strong government. They believed that this type of government was the best way to protect everyone’s rights.
Madison’s purpose with this paper is to enlighten the people of the protections that are made by the different branches of government, and how they protect the rights of the people. The point Madison stresses that that “each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others” . This is so that each department remains independent and does not impede on another’s. In the form of government that the Federalists’ are pushing for, Madison says that legislative branch will be the strongest, therefore needing to be split into more branches. It is because of these different branches that there will be a system of checks and balances and will guard the government from being usurped. In the end, Madison discusses how political factions will always be around and that the only solutions to them is to create more factions.
Yates would agree with Madison to some extent regarding the fact that a republic must “guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part”. Yates proposes in his article that the aim of Federalists is only to help themselves and the aristocracy. However, he also claims that, “if the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be amended.” This coincides with Madison’s statement because while one branch of government might have too much power, it can be amended so that another part won’t have injustice.
While Yates would agree with Madison’s statement, he would also disagree with it. Yates argues that Federalists like Madison are using “compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government” , which essentially could lead to the corruption of government. Yates believes that if one part of this strong central government is corrupt then so are all the corresponding branches along with it.
Madison would agree to a small extent with Yates in regards to the fact that, “ when people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force.” Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists seemed to believe that too much power in the hands of one person would not be smart and could eventually lead to the downfall of any government. It is because of this reason that Madison proposes the different branches of government and the checks and balances. The division of the government will “guard the society against the oppression of its rulers” , which allows multiple people to have power instead of one. Multiple people having power gives way to people not being as forceful with their power once their gone.
However, Madison and Yates would disagree on how they would handle someone having too much power. Yates blatantly claims that the Federalists’ government will oppress them once they are corrupt by saying, “I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire.” He believes that a strong centralized government can only lead to corruption and nothing else. Madison on the other hand, understands that too much power in person’s hand could potentially lead to corruption which is why he proposes the ideas of different branches of government that keep each other in checks. This gives not one branch more power than the other. He asserts that, “ the different governments will control each other, at the same time each will be controlled by itself” , making the point that the power will be split and keep the liberties of the citizens intact.
After reading Publius and Brutus, it is my informed opinion that the Constitution will lead to a compound republic. I believe after reading Publius’ argument that the idea of different branches of government along with a system of checks and balances is a great way to distribute the power and keep a strong centralized government. I think the strong centralized government is an important aspect to keep because it keeps all the states unified under the same rules and laws that apply to everyone else. I believe the anti-federalists claim about one person should not have too much power is correct because I believe it also leads to corruption, however with the divisions of the government we are able to avoid this. Madison states, “by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in the their proper places” , allows the possibility of corruption to be diminished. This division of power allows one group of people not to be above the other, but gives everyone equality in the eyes of the law. The idea of checks and balances gives way to have certain branches be monitored but also be independent so that no toes are being stepped on or be out of bounds. As Madison said the greatest security against an oppressor is that “members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others.” It is for these reasons I believe that the constitution will lead to a compound republic.
In conclusion, we see that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists are arguing whether a strong centralized government would be the best for the people, or would it lead to a tyrannical aristocracy. Both parties wrote articles about this topic in order to inform the public of their viewpoints so that the citizens could make an informed decision. After analyzing both documents it is seen that the primary concern of both parties was and always has been the betterment of people and their liberties, but had different tactics in how they did it. Lastly, it is seen that from these documents one can make the decision that the Constitution would lead to a compound republic and not a tyrannical aristocracy.