Primary+Documents

**
 * Chapter 7 - Shaping a Federal Union


 * James Wilson, from Wilson's Defense of the Constitution at the Pennsylvania Convention (1787)

//(////Students responsible for the following questions: Anthony / Bunton / Curtis)// **

1. How did WIlson justify his assumption of a commanding role in the Pennsylvania convention? Did this tactic benefit the Federalists and weaken their opponents?

Wilson's justification for having such a role in the Pennsylvania Convention stemmed largely from his Federalist beliefs. After mentioning how honored he was to be a part of the Convention, he describes his feelings on state rights, sovereignty, etc. He claims that the views of the members of the Convention could not be limited to one small state or community, but rather expanded to the majority (if not all of) the states. He uses the idea of necessary representation of all the states to back up his assumption of a role in the Pennsylvania Convention. He refers to some of the states as "unformed, myriads of the human race," and says that because of this, it was necessary for there to be members present at the Convention to represent these incredibly diverse areas in the United States. (Anthony)

The above ideas expressed by Wilson benefited the Federalist cause and weakened opposing beliefs. Wilson calls for a unified government as a result of the diversity among each state in America, an extremely Federalist idea. He justifies his assumption of a role in the Pennsylvania Convention by saying that it is necessary to have members as part of a larger, central government in order to protect the states' rights and benefit the states overall. Wilson discusses the idea of a Bill of Rights at length, and agrees that the power to protect peoples' rights lies within the people, not the government, but that a central government is still necessary. This idea appealed to Americans and thus benefited the Federalists. (Anthony)

2. One reason the Antifederalists attacked the proposed Constitution was that it lacked a Bill of Rights. How did Wilson counter this criticism?

The absence of a Bill of Rights was one of the fundamental reasons for the criticism and skepticism surrounding the proposed constitution. However, Wilson counters this criticism by stating that a Bill of Rights is not necessary for ensuring Americans' rights. He mentions several states in order to prove that they are functioning properly and ensuring the rights of their citizens without any documents similar to the Bill of Rights. He describes the Bill of Rights as an enumeration of powers, and that if we were to accept a Bill of Rights, the enumeration of powers would cause all powers to be in the government, resulting in the negation of the peoples' rights: the complete opposite of what the Bill of Rights was intended to do. (Anthony)

Wilson states that he views the states as "made for the people," and thus means that the state governments already preserve the rights of the people and that each state is perfectly capable of functioning without a Bill of Rights. He claims that the power already rests within the people, and that they have control over how much power their individual state governments possess. Overall, he justifies the absence of the Bill of Rights by saying that a Bill of Rights would be unnecessary. (Anthony)

3. What is the relationship between sovereignty and political power? In delegating the latter, do the people lose the former?

4. How did Wilson illustrate or define the federal system as it would operate under the Constitution?

Wilson illustrated the federal system under the Constitution as being a division of governments designed to govern different size communities of people. He said that he "considers the people of the United States as forming one great community." This community is to be governed by the federal government. He also says that he sees the people of each state forming communities. These communities are governed by state governments. Wilson says that "it will be found necessary that different proportions of legislative powers should be given to the governments according to the nature, number, and magnitude of their objects," meaning that each level of government should have different powers so that they can effectively govern the people in a proper way. For example the federal government has the power to make treaties and alliances with other countries, making a decision for our people as a whole, while the state governments have the power to analyze and ratify amendments to the constitution based on what is good for the community of people in their state. (Curtis)


 * Patrick Henry and George Mason, from Arguments against Ratification at the Virginia Convention (1788) **

// (Students responsible for the following questions: Luchak / Magaziner / Morris / Parks) //

1. How did Patrick Henry define the difference between a confederation and a consolidated, national government? Why did he see the latter as so dangerous?

Patrick Henry's defines the differences between a confederation and a consolidated, national government as "We the people" versus "We the states", which he so often argues at the Virginia Convention in 1788. According to Henry Patrick the Articles of Confederation set up a Confederation. A confederation was a government in which the colonies were allied together setting up a weak federal government with ultimate sovereignty remaining with the state. He argued that the Constitution was calling for the termination of the Confederation and the creation of Consolidated, national government. The Consolidated National Government stripped the states of their sovereignty and gave them to the federal government, creating a much more powerful federal government then had previously existed. Henry argues that this switch of power is extremely dangerous because of the neglect of the writers to include a Bill of Rights. As Henry states "The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change." Henry sums up his argument stating that although individuals "trade may be increased", the liberty and freedom of all Americans would be at risk and "liberty ought to be the direct end of your government". There for the security of individual liberties the Constitution does not secure creates a dangerous government. (Magaziner)

2. How did Henry address local, material concerns? Hoe did he present ideological, political ones? Patrick Henry addressed local concerns by demonstrating how the powers of the state would be passed to the national government. Basically, he points out that once the constitution was ratified there would be no protection from a tyrant on the national level because all the power would rest with him. Also he uses the issue of slavery to try to sway public opinion. He fears that since slavery is a necessary evil for the southern way of life it must be protected. The state should be unwilling to give control in these issues to a national assembly that would not completely represent their needs. Since slavery is hardly practiced in the northern states, he knows that they eventually will try to abolish it. Since people are content with the current means of government, it should be maintained. He contrasts the ideology of English tradition with the new American government. He said that America had lost its connection to liberty. The states had formed the confederacy to protect liberties, but now they are compromising them for national regulations and protection. He fears that loosing sight of liberty, the reason for rebellion, would only put the new country on a path to oppression. (Parks)  _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Did he appear to be more worried about states' rights or people's rights?

Patrick Henry was worried about state's rights. He was annoyed by the Constitutional Convention's deviation from their original task. When the convention abandoned the Confederation, they gave up the idea of state's rights. The use of "we the people" signified the weakening powers of the states. The new consolidated national government was not necessary in his opinion because the states had provided a "calm and tranquil" life for the people. To Henry, this new system resembled the English monarchy. He argues that change compromised the sovereignty of the states. He mentions the power of state militias being transfered to the national government and that now standing armies would be kept. Patrick Henry was worried about the new government's powers being taken from the states. When the states are weak, they cannot protect their people from a national tyranny. (Parks)

4. What were George Mason's particular worries? How did his argument supplement Henry's?

Mason was concerned for the loss of states rights and power, and the consequent increase of power for the federal government. Mason believed the Constitution gave the federal government powers which impeded on the powers of state governments, such as taxation, and were against the best interest of the people. Mason believed that the people could not be doubly taxed, by the federal government and the their state government. This conflict would cause the decline of one of these two powers, and with the new power given to the federal government through the Constitution, the federal government would win that battle. He then moves on to say, that "It is ascertained by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people." He argues here that the people that make up this new country are too different in where they live, in interests, and in have so many different customary values, that a federal government ruling over all the people of this country could not do so without infringing upon the rights of the many different people. Therefore Mason believes in is extremely dangerous to give central government so much power. Mason believes the only way to insure the rights of these people is to allow states to govern themselves, and the people that reside within their boundaries. These ideas supplement Henry's arguments of a confederacy versus a consolidated government. According to both men the power needs to remain in the states hands to insure the rights of the people, and the states, which in their opinions will insure the liberties of all.

5. Were Patrick Henry and George Mason reactionaries in their distrust of constitutional innovation or were they still revolutionaries?


 * James Madison, // The Federalist Papers //, No. 45 (1788)

// (Students responsible for the following questions: Saidman / Seeberger / VIllamor) // **

1. What anti-federalist arguments did Madison counter in this essay?

The Federalists favored the creation of a strong federal government that would more closely unite the states as one large, continental nation. They tended to come from the wealthier class of merchants and plantation owners. Federalists had been instrumental in the creation of the Constitution, arguing that it was a necessary improvement on the Articles of Confedertation, the country's first attempt at unifying the states in a national political arrangement. Leaders among the Federalists included two men who helped develop the Constitution, James Madison and Axledander Hamilton, and two national heroes whose support would greatly improve the Federalists' prospects for winning, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. The anti-federalists argue that that the central governing authority of a nation should be equal or inferior to, but not having more power than, its sub-national states or state government. In 'Federalist No. 45', James Madison countered anti-federalist arguments by saying that the strength of the federal government under the proposed United States Constitution does not pose a danger to the individual states, a major concern of the Anti-Federalists. (Saidman)

2. Why did he begin his essay with questions about the ends or goals of a federal government? What did he say was the ultimate goal of government?

3. How did Madison try to neutralize fears of stronger federal authority? Did he provide speculations or certainties?

4. How did he compare federal and state powers? Why did he say the latter would generally still have the advantage?

In the Document, James Madison stated that State and Federal Government were intermediately dependent on each other, but compared, the State Governments would still habe the "advantage of the federal Government". (Seeberger)

Madison compared the federal and state powers upon the question when those powers would be used and on what scale. He said that the "operations of the Federal Government would be most extensive and in important times of war and danger...", whereas the state governments would be active in "times of peace and security". He stated that in the course of the future of the United States, times of peace would occur more often, and thus, the State Governments would "enjoy another advantage over the Federal Government" and would be in power more often than the Federal Government. (Seeberger)

The "Father of the Constitution" also states that the State governments had a great influence in the government and the structure of the Federal Union, because without the intervention of the States, the "President of the United States cannot be elected at all.". The Senate would be elected only by the State Legislature, and even the House of Representative would be under much influence of "that class of men". He thus states that the State Legislatures would exercise great powers, because it would be their obligation and task to form the Federal Government. (Seeberger)

Finally, James Madison states that the State Legislatures had far more influence on the Nation on its whole than the Federal Government, because the "number of individuals employed under the Confederation of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed by the particular states." He says that consequently, there would be less personal influence from the side of the Federal Government, and when the Federal Government had tax collectors, the states would have them too. Furthermore, he says that while the states' officials would be spread "over the face of the country", the federal officials would be principally found on the sea-coast, and would not be very numerous. He thus states that the circle of influence of the states over the whole country would be much greater than that of the Federal Government. (Seeberger)