Arguments Against The Articles Of Confederation

After a new Constitution, intended to replace the Articles of Confederation, it was agreed that it would go into effect when nine of the thirteen states had approved it in ratifying conventions. There ensued a nationwide debate over constitutional principles, and the press was overwhelmed with letters condemning or praising the documents. The three men chief among them Hamilton, who wrote about two-thirds of the essays addressed the objections of opponents, who feared a lliberal central government that would replace the states rights and on individual liberties. All strong nationalists argued that most important the proposed system would preserve the Union, now in danger of breaking apart, and empower the federal government to act firmly and together in the national interest.
The ultimate protection of individual liberties had to wait for later passage of the Bill of Rights, for these men, as their arguments made plain, distrusted what Madison called the superior force of an interested and majority. Many of the constitutional provisions they praised were intended precisely to decrease democratic surplus.. The essays, published in book form as The Federalist in 1788, have through the years been widely read and respected for their masterly analysis and interpretation of the Constitution and the principles upon which the government of the United States was