Anti-federalist Argument
“A republican or free government can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure. When this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy, or despotism will rise on its ruin.” -Centinel Letter I (October 5 1787)
Federalist Papers Argument
“The passions, therefore, not the reason, of the public would sit in judgement. But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government.” -Federalist 49
Describe one difference between these two arguments.
One difference between these two arguments is the contrasting views on the role of public opinion in governing. The Anti-federalist argument states that in a republican or free government, the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion should be the criterion for every public measure. In contrast, the Federalist argument maintains that the passions of the public should be controlled and regulated by the government, and that it is the reason of the public that should ultimately control and regulate the government.
One difference between these two arguments is their perspective on the role of the public in government. The Anti-federalist argument emphasizes the importance of the people in a republican or free government, stating that the people should be the sovereign and their sense or opinion should be the criterion of every public measure. On the other hand, the Federalist argument highlights the need for reason to control and regulate the government, suggesting that the passions of the public should be controlled and regulated by the government.
One difference between these two arguments is their views on the role of the people and their influence on the government. The anti-federalist argument suggests that in a republican or free government, the body of the people, as the sovereign, should have their sense or opinion serve as the criterion for every public measure. They emphasize the importance of a virtuous society and the equal distribution of property for such a government to exist.
On the other hand, the federalist argument acknowledges the existence of passions among the public and argues that reason, rather than passions, should control and regulate the government. They believe that the government should be able to control and regulate the passions of the people in order to ensure effective governance. Thus, they place more importance on the reason of the public as the guiding force for the government, rather than solely relying on the sense or opinion of the people.
Overall, the difference lies in their contrasting views on the balance between the influence of public opinion and the role of reason in the government. The anti-federalist argument emphasizes the sovereignty of the people and the importance of their sense or opinion, while the federalist argument stresses the need for reason and the government's role in controlling and regulating the passions of the public.