Alexander Hamilton Federalist 6 Analysis

Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist 6 argues that countries who do not unite overall are bound to fail. The weak central government that was currently established could not prosper or even survive according to him. He wrote that “A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other”. The fact that he fully believed that the states would devolve into war if they were not better united may not be true, but The Federalist Papers were meant to be persuasive and shocking. Hamilton’s theatrical writing style lent itself to this,
This was not a particularly favorable idea at the time. Antifederalists had the support of those that did not want to go back to a near-tyrannical government, a government that they believed would evolve from the Federalist’s plans. To combat this, Hamilton proposed his idea of popular sovereignty. This is discussed by Joshua Miller in “The Ghostly Body Politic The Federalist Papers and Popular Sovereignty”, where he argues that the Federalist version of popular sovereignty was misleading. Ideally it meant that political power comes from the people but is in the central government. This may seem appealing to common people but it was not that simple. Hamilton believed that common people were not fit to run a government and so he put systems in place to combat them. He ensured that the government did not require active participation, only public support. Establishing a checks and balances system on the surface appeared to a step towards weaker government, but was simply a way to combat and contain corrupt leaders. He stated that the people could overthrow the government at any time, but only if the all worked together simultaneously, an impossible feat. He also convinced people that a strong national government was better for the people, as it represented everyone as opposed to a group like state
Because of this, parties naturally form. In the United States, the formation can be traced to before The Constitution and the dispute over strong versus weak government, and continued to develop through the early years of the new government. Once the Constitution was established debates arose on several fronts. Whether it was through financial planning, distribution of power, or potentially unlawful treaties, tensions between the ideals of the two groups were enflamed. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were often so polarized that coming to compromises could be difficult, much to the chagrin of others, including Washington. However, they cannot be completely credited with forming the two-party system. Other politicians contributed, and at times the division was just the natural product of the circumstance. Also, they are not entirely the reason the system has persevered over time. Instead, the nature of elections in the United States have caused the two-party system to be maintained. All this being said, whether Hamilton and Jefferson are entirely to blame, they also proved that dissension is not always bad. It allows for different ideas to be heard and compromises to be made. Through their disagreements they produced innovation that has shaped the nation. This party system, though it has shifted and swapped over the years, still stands. The effects of these men run so deep that