Federalist 70 in AP US Government

Hamilton's three moves: energy, unity, accountability

Hamilton wrote Federalist 70 during the ratification debate, as part of the Federalist Papers aimed at New York readers. His opening claim is the line to remember: "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government." By energy he means the ability to act firmly, especially when enforcing laws, defending the country, or handling a crisis.

His second move is that energy depends on unity. A single person, he wrote, brings "decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch" far more than a group would. A plural executive (two or more people sharing the job) would argue, split into factions, and stall.

The third move answers the critics. Anti-Federalists worried that one powerful president would turn into a king. Hamilton flipped that fear around. With one president, the public can identify who made a bad call and punish it at the next election. With a council, members could blame each other and nobody would be held responsible.

Unity inside one branch vs. Federalist 51's division between branches

Federalist 70 is easy to confuse with Federalist 51. Federalist 51 (Madison) and Federalist 70 (Hamilton) are both required documents, and both defend the Constitution. They answer different questions, though. Federalist 51 explains why power is divided between the branches, so "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Federalist 70 explains why power is concentrated within the executive branch.

The two essays fit together. Hamilton can defend a strong, unified president because Madison's system of checks and balances still limits that president through Congress and the courts. A quick test for an excerpt: language about ambition, rival branches, or each department checking the others points to 51. Language about energy, one person, secrecy, speed, or blame points to 70.

A second mix-up is with Federalist 78, also by Hamilton, which covers the judiciary. If the excerpt focuses on judicial independence or the powers of the courts, think 78.

Placing Hamilton's argument in the ratification debate

Federalist 70 belongs to the larger argument between Federalists, who wanted a stronger national government than the Articles of Confederation allowed, and Anti-Federalists, who feared concentrated power. The Articles had no executive branch at all to carry out laws, so Hamilton is defending something the old system lacked.

The essay carries over directly to the study of the presidency in Unit 2. Debates about executive orders, war powers, and emergency action all come back to the tension Hamilton described: a president who can act quickly is also a president whose power can grow.

Reading a Federalist 70 excerpt and using it in the Argument Essay

When the line "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government" shows up as a text-based stimulus in the multiple-choice section, a few questions follow it. These test the source-analysis skills: describing Hamilton's argument and evidence, then explaining how that argument connects to a political principle or institution.

Typical tasks look like this:

• Identify Hamilton's main claim (a single executive is more effective and more accountable).
• Pick the constitutional feature that reflects it (Article II gives executive power to one president).
• Match the argument to a modern scenario, such as a president acting quickly on a military or foreign-policy issue.
• Spot which group would have disagreed (Anti-Federalists, who feared a monarch-like executive).

A common wrong answer choice says Hamilton wanted an executive free from public control. He argued the reverse: unity makes the president more answerable to voters.

The Argument Essay (Question 4) asks for a defensible thesis supported by evidence from a list of foundational documents, plus a response to an opposing view. Federalist 70 fits prompts about presidential power, the structure of the executive, or whether the government can act effectively.

It works on more than one side. You can use it to argue that a strong president is needed for quick, decisive action. You can also turn it into a critique, arguing that today's presidency has moved past what Hamilton defended, since his case depended on the president staying accountable and checked.

The reasoning point comes from explaining why the evidence supports your claim. "Hamilton wanted a strong president" only describes the document. "Because one president can act with speed and secrecy in a crisis, and voters know whom to hold responsible, a unified executive is both effective and accountable" explains it. For the rebuttal, Brutus 1 or general Anti-Federalist fears about centralized power give you a real opposing view to answer, and Federalist 51's checks and balances give you a way to answer it.