Something very different that I noticed in the Federalist paper the writer starts off immediately trying to convince people of why his view is correct. He doesn't have a small introduction like the writer of the Anti-Federalist paper did imploring the people to put the best interest of the country first. It is interesting to me though that both writers appeal to human nature and draw on it for their very different opinions. The writer argues that government is itself human nature and in order for it to function properly, it must be intertwined with the people it is representing (paragraph four).
The main argument of this particular paper is the interdependence of federal government between its three branches (paragraph six). The writer believes that because the country has become so large and diverse, a federal government is necessary in order to help the states function properly. He believes that current responsibilities are too much for the individual states to bear (paragraph seven).
The writer's second point is particularly interesting to me. While I don't understand every part of it, I did pick up on a couple of points the first one concerning the rights of the majority and minority. It is evident that the speaker believes that federal government will secure the rights of both parties. He continues to stress the interdependence of the different sectors of federal government and also the federal government with the people they are governing. Another point I found particularly interesting was when he wrote, "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society." Did he mean this literally? Immediately after he makes this point, he argues that sometimes liberty can be lost in the pursuit of justice. A very interesting observation however it would have been helpful if he had included examples from history with this like the Anti-Federalist writer did in his letter. Another significant difference in the Federalist writer and the Anti-Federalist writer is that the Federalist believes that the larger the society, the more capable it is of self-government. The two writers could not differ more on this point when the Anti-Federalist was convinced that the country was in fact too large to have one single self-governing representative.
While both writers have very different view on America and the way it should be governed, they also have similar views when it comes to people and human nature. They both realize the importance of it and the power it possesses.