Anti-federalist Argument
“It is the opinion of the greatest writers that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratic principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of a number of small republics possessing all the powers of internal government but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns”. -Centinel Letter I (October 5 1787)
Federalist Papers Argument
“In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.” -Federalist 10
Describe one difference between these two arguments.
One difference between these two arguments is their perspective on the size of the country. The anti-federalist argument suggests that a very extensive country cannot effectively be governed on democratic principles and recommends a confederation of small republics. On the other hand, the federalist argument states that in a larger republic, it would be more difficult for unworthy candidates to manipulate elections successfully due to the greater number of citizens involved in the voting process, leading to a freer and more likely selection of candidates with attractive merit and established characters.
One difference between these two arguments is their perspective on the size of the country and its effect on democratic governance. The anti-federalist argument believes that a very extensive country cannot be effectively governed under democratic principles, and suggests a confederation of small republics as a solution. On the other hand, the federalist argument asserts that larger republics with a greater number of citizens pose advantages such as greater difficulty for unworthy candidates to succeed and a more likelihood for the selection of meritorious and popular leaders.
One difference between these two arguments is their view on the size and structure of a government. The anti-federalist argument suggests that a very extensive country, such as the United States, cannot be effectively governed on democratic principles unless it is divided into smaller republics. According to this argument, each small republic would have the power to govern its own internal affairs while also being united in managing foreign and general concerns.
On the other hand, the federalist argument suggests that a large republic is preferable to a small one. The federalists argue that in a large republic, there would be a greater pool of citizens from which representatives are chosen. This, in turn, would make it more difficult for unworthy candidates to manipulate and win elections through corrupt practices. The federalists believed that in a large republic, with a diverse population, the votes of the people would be more likely to focus on individuals with attractive merits and established characters.
In summary, the anti-federalist argument favors smaller republics within a confederation, while the federalist argument supports a larger republic that incorporates a broader range of citizens for choosing representatives.