Argument
The Federal Farmer argues that the plan of the Constitution, while claimed to be a federal system and seeming to be so in some respects, will in the end annihilate the states by consolidating them into one national government. This concern over consolidation was among the most important of the Anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution; they saw the destruction of state sovereignty as inimical to freedom. Honest federalists, in the view of the Federal Farmer, wished for the substantial preservation of the state governments, but sought a federal government that was more than merely advisory. The letters indicate that the Federal Farmer ascribed to the compact theory of federalism.
The threat to federal government constituted a menace to republicanism. Without federalism, a republic the size of the United States would have grave difficulty giving fair representation to the varied interests of the people in the different states. Representatives in the national capital would have to be kept responsible to their constituents at home; the Federal Farmer believed that a large number of representatives was required to ensure a high ratio of representatives to constituents and guarantee that all classes would be fairly represented.
Read more about this topic: Federal Farmer
Famous quotes containing the word argument:
“No one thinks anything silly is suitable when they are an adolescent. Such an enormous share of their own behavior is silly that they lose all proper perspective on silliness, like a baker who is nauseated by the sight of his own eclairs. This provides another good argument for the emerging theory that the best use of cryogenics is to freeze all human beings when they are between the ages of twelve and nineteen.”
—Anna Quindlen (20th century)
“The wonder of light is your familiar tale,
Pert wench, down to the nineteenth century:
Mr. Rimbaud the Frenchman’s apostasy
Asserts the argument that you are stale,
Flat and unprofitable, importunate but pale,
Lithe Corpse!”
—Allen Tate (1899–1979)
“Because a person is born the subject of a given state, you deny the sovereignty of the people? How about the child of Cuban slaves who is born a slave, is that an argument for slavery? The one is a fact as well as the other. Why then, if you use legal arguments in the one case, you don’t in the other?”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)