A new country, an inadequately constituted government, and many ideas and models of what the government should be like whose idea must be chosen. At the time the Federalist document was written, there were many groups out there not only Federalists but also Anti-Federalists, Brutes, and Centenarians. Everyone has their own ideas and counters the arguments of others. The Federalist document was somewhat of a blueprint for how to run the country and talked about issues in chronological order but, that being said, Federalists 47-51 were all about government interactions in the name of checks and balances, so I'll be evaluating how they presented their argument. The first argument in Federalist Journal 47, Madison was writing the refutation of the idea of ​​total separation. Since we just emerged from what we will call tyranny, the “people” have been fighting not to end up in the same situation where only one person had all the power, so the conventional route was to totally separate the branches, leaders etc. and this model was taken from a criticism of the proposed Constitution by Montesquieu, a famous political critic who stated, speaking of the British constitution, "there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of the judiciary" or “if the power of judging were not separated from the legislative and executive power”. In this sense, Madison's idea was that yes, the branches would be separate but still intertwined with each other. He argued that divided we fall and that if the branches were divided then that would give so much power to one group with no way to control it and therefore the leader of those branches might as well be the king because... middle of paper..... .ely nominal”. In conclusion the Federalists 47-51 were all about checks and balances. Check and balance not only with the government but also with society. Madison used previous experiences of British government to fashion a government like the British but much better because every power, office, etc. has been taken into account, so there will no longer be a case of tyranny. Yes, there were mostly counterarguments involving fears that the government the Federalists spoke of would not last due to fears of war, rebellion, conquest, equality and yes perhaps another colonization, but the way it was written the Federalist Paper, was written to build on each other, the more arguments were presented by the Brutes, Anti-Federalists and even the Centennial, the more the Federalist Paper wrote to explain and refute their opponents' paper.