Museum of Minds

Ratification Debates · Theme Cluster

Federalism & State Power

How much power should the central government have — and what is left to the states?

USG.2.ERUSG.2.IN8.2.PUSHC.1.CC

The most fundamental structural question at ratification was whether to replace a loose confederation of sovereign states with a national government that could act directly on individuals. The Federalists said this was necessary for survival; the Anti-Federalists said it would destroy the states and with them the republican self-government that only small communities could sustain.

The Federalist Argument — Publius

No. 15
Insufficiency of the Confederation
Hamilton demolishes the Articles of Confederation — a government that can only request, not command, cannot govern.
No. 45
Powers of the States
Madison argues the powers of the states are more extensive and numerous than those of the federal government.
No. 46
Influence of State and Federal Govts
On why state governments will always have a natural advantage in the affections of the people.
No. 17
Same Subject — Federal Power
Hamilton argues the federal government has little incentive to encroach on state jurisdiction.

The Anti-Federalist Response

Brutus
Essay I — Consolidated Government
The 'necessary and proper' and supremacy clauses will swallow all state authority.
Federal Farmer
Letter I — On Deliberation
The Federal Farmer argues the states are the true seat of republican self-governance.
Ask About Federalism & State Power
Ask Publius — or the Anti-Federalists — about any argument in this cluster. The chatbot draws from both collections.
This is the cluster on Federalism & State Power. The central question: How much power should the central government have — and what is left to the states? Ask me anything about the Federalist or Anti-Federalist arguments on this theme.