In Federalist #10, James Madison argues that the greatest vice of popular government is its vulnerability to problems caused by factions, special interest groups who, in supporting their own interests, occasionally undermine the rights of other citizens or the good of the whole.
What did Madison argue in the Federalist Papers 10?
The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 10. Madison begins perhaps the most famous of the Federalist papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions.
What were the main arguments of Federalist 10?
What is the main argument in Federalist 10? The essay’s main argument was that a strong, united republic would be more effective than the individual states at controlling “factions” – groups of citizens united by some cause “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the… interests of the community.”
What method does Madison support in Federalist 10?
Madison's Federalist #10 provides us today with a good rationale for the American political system's use of both separation of powers, and federalism--even though he addressed federalism mainly in other papers, including Nos. 39 and 51). Separation of powers means each branch of government is occupied by officials serving only there (with one minor exception); and the chief executive is selected independently from the choosing of a national assembly or congress.
What is Madison's thesis in Federalist Paper Number 10?
James Madison's thesis in Federalist Paper Number 10 is that a strong national government is better able to guard against the destructive effects of special interest groups and factions than smaller republics. Madison wrote the essay to persuade the states to ratify the U.S. Constitution.
See more
What are Madison's two primary arguments?
I too found it uncompelling. As Marc notes, Madison has two primary arguments: 1. big republics screen for better politicians and 2. factions that become majorities threaten the liberties of minorities. Both are weak.
What did Madison argue about the Constitution?
Madison argued that it was the great number of factions (of political, economic and regional thought); and the genuine cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity, that would (under the proposed US Constitution) inherently avoid the tyranny of any single faction or group.
What is Federalist 10 about?
The Federalist no. 10 is about the danger of factions - groups of people with interests that are contrary to the interests of others. It’s not very long and is easily available on line. Why don’t you read it and make up your own mind instead of seeking someone else’s interpretation of it?
How many Federalist papers were there?
There were 85 Federalist Papers. Some were written by Alexander Hamilton, some by James Madison, and the remaining by John Jay, but they each wrote under the common name Publius.
What was the argument in "I derive Madison"?
I derive Madison was arguing the respective weaknesses and strengths of a democracy vs. a republic.
What is Madison's rebuttal?
Madison’s rebuttal, “The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures,” fails to address how this issue would be resolved for electing Congress.
What would happen if different groups were forced to negotiate?
Differing groups would be forced to negotiate, compromise, and combine amongst each other, arriving at temporary coalitions, who would fashion unique solutions to questions of policy that would have to respect the rights of minorities. In order to create temporary working majorities in which functional policies could be effected.
What did James Madison believe about the Constitution?
In conclusion, James Madison believed that people are by nature diverse and self-interested, and thus every society forms factions, or groups of people with special interests that sometimes harm other citizens or the good of the whole. The Articles of Confederation did not effectively control and reduce the negative effects of factions on the nation, and thus a new government was necessary. The government laid out in the Constitution was ideal because it was a republic, a representative government that would prevent self-interested passions from holding too much sway over the government. It was also large, containing representatives from every state and many different interest groups, making it difficult for one group to dominate and suppress the others. Representatives would be elected by a large body of people, helping to ensure that only the most worthy would hold office. Finally, laws were passed by the whole nation, making it difficult for problems in one state to infiltrate and affect others. Under one centralized representative government, a diverse nation could thrive, ruled by the majority, but with a fair amount of consideration for all.
What was Madison concerned about?
Madison was concerned with preserving the rights of minority factions in the face of the ability of majority factions to always outvote them. Obviously, in a democracy this is a crucial consideration. But I wonder if he ever considered the opposite issue: that in a representative government the restraints built in to give minority interests power to not be overrun by majorities also gives them power to thwart the will of the majority by throwing the system into gridlock where nothing can be done. When the minority faction is one that already enjoys privilege and power, that outcome may be exactly what they want, as it allows them to maintain dominance over the majority.
How to eliminate factions?
There are two ways, Madison argues, to eliminate this problem. First, the causes of faction may be eliminated, or second, its effects may be controlled. There are two ways of eliminating the causes of faction: Liberty, which allows factions to form, may be eliminated, or people may be given identical interests, passions, and opinions. The first solution is foolish and unacceptable, as it would be worse than the initial problem. The second, because of the diversity of human nature, is completely impossible .
What is the power of a majority faction?
A majority faction, however, through popular vote, has the power to completely control the government. Therefore, modifications must be made to democratic government to keep the majority from oppressing minority groups or acting against the good of the nation.
Why is the first solution foolish and unacceptable?
The second, because of the diversity of human nature, is completely impossible. Since the causes of faction are impossible to remove, the only solution to the problems caused by faction is in controlling its effects.
Why is a nation ruled by a national government, rather than individual state governments, ideal?
Thus, a nation ruled by a national government, rather than individual state governments, is ideal, as it prevents the extreme views of a few from affecting the lives of the whole. In conclusion, James Madison believed that people are by nature diverse and self-interested, and thus every society forms factions, or groups ...
Who wrote the Constitution?
James Madison was a very wise man who wrote most of our Constitution. He definitely understood human nature and how to structure government to maximize efficiency and productivity without eliminating freedom.
What is Madison's argument for federal government?
The key to Madison's argument for federal government is his preference for what he calls a "republic" over a "democracy." Madison redefines the word republic: its usual meaning was a country in which the people (rather than a king) govern, but Madison uses it to mean a government by representatives instead of a government controlled by the people themselves. Another way to express this contrast is "representative democracy" as opposed to "direct democracy."
What is Federalist No. 10?
The Federalist Papers were a series of essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, writing under the pseudonym "Publius," supporting the ratification of the newly written American Constitution. The essays were the most significant contribution to the debate over the structure of the new American government. Thomas Jefferson called them "the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written."
How did Madison's argument affect the electorate?
First of all, Madison argues that large republics have the effect of filtering out undesirable people or opinions before they become too powerful. The choice of leaders would be made by people who were prominent enough not to be swayed by their own self-interest; in Madison's words, "citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country." The larger the electorate, the more likely it was to elect someone prominent rather than someone attentive to narrow interests. The Constitution purposely made Congress smaller, in proportion to its constituency's size, than the state legislatures were. The electoral college and the fact that Senators were often selected by state legislatures rather than by popular vote were ways to achieve this filtering process (although Madison does not explicitly refer to these features in Federalist No. 10). This filtering process was an elitist and anti-democratic measure, compared to the greater popular involvement that was possible at the state level.
Why did Madison argue that the causes of faction cannot be eliminated?
Madison then argues that the causes of faction cannot be eliminated because they stem from human nature. For example, people are naturally inclined to disagree passionately about religion and politics, which splits them into opposing camps. For Madison, the most common source of faction is the "unequal distribution of property," not only between debtors and creditors (the issue in Shays' Rebellion) but also among agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests. This was a problem for the newly independent America because different states had different economies--for example, the South was predominantly agricultural, while the North was more commercial. A more centralized government would have to manage these differences.
Why was the Constitution important?
The Constitution was an attempt to curb the spirit of liberty and correct the government's weakness by providing a centralized federal government that was protected from too much popular democracy. Thus, the debate over the Constitution (between Federalists like Madison and Hamilton, and Anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution) centered on whether the government it created would have too much centralized power.
Why did Madison say the only solution was to limit their harmful effects?
Because the sources of faction were impossible to eliminate, Madison claims the only solution is to limit their harmful effects. He argues that the proposed federal system is the best way to do this.
What is the problem with factions in the second paragraph of the essay?
It is a problem that is especially thorny in democracies because the liberty they provide for citizens to pursue their own interests is precisely what allows factions to flourish. But Madison does not reject the idea of liberty; the problem is how to eliminate the threat of factions without eliminating liberty .
How did Madison convince the class struggle to be ameliorated in America?
Madison was convinced that the class struggle would be ameliorated in America by establishing a limited federal government that would make functional use of the vast size of the country and the existence of the states as active political organisms.
What is the most famous essay in the Federalist Papers?
The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 10. Madison begins perhaps the most famous essay of The Federalist Papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions.
How many pages did Hume spend on the Federalist?
Hume spent well over five pages dissecting these three types; but Madison, while determined to be inclusive, had not the space to go into such minute analysis. Besides, he was more intent now on developing the cure than on describing the malady. He therefore consolidated Hume's two-page treatment of "personal" factions and his long discussion of parties based on "principle and affection" into a single sentence. The tenth Federalist reads" "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex ad oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." It is hard to conceive of a more perfect example of the concentration of idea and meaning than Madison achieved in this famous sentence.
What was James Madison's most important political prophecy?
His most amazing political prophecy, contained within the pages of Federalist 10, was that the size of the United States and its variety of interests constituted a guarantee of stability and justice under the new Constitution. When Madison made this prophecy, the accepted opinion among all sophisticated politicians was exactly the opposite. It was David Hume's speculations on the "Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth," first published in 1752, that most stimulated James Madison's' thought on factions. In this essay, Hume decried any attempt to substitute a political utopia for "the common botched and inaccurate governments" which seemed to serve imperfect men so well. Nevertheless, he argued, the idea of a perfect commonwealth "is surely the most worthy curiosity of any the wit of man can possibly devise. And who knows, if this controversy were fixed by the universal consent of the wise and learned, but, in some future age, an opportunity might be afforded of reducing the theory to practice, either by a dissolution of some old government, or by the combination of men to form a new one, in some distant part of the world. " At the end of Hume's essay was a discussion that was of interest to Madison. The Scot casually demolished the Montesquieu small-republic theory; and it was this part of the essay, contained in a single page, that was to serve Madison in new-modeling a "botched" Confederation "in a distant part of the world." Hume said that "in a large government, which is modeled with masterly skill, there is compass and room enough to refine the democracy, from the lower people, who may be admitted into the first elections or first concoction of the commonwealth, to the higher magistrate, who direct all the movements. At the same time, the parts are so distant and remote, that it is very difficult, either by intrigue, prejudice, or passion, to hurry them into any measure against the public interest." Hume's analysis here had turned the small-territory republic theory upside down: if a free state could once be established in a large area, it would be stable and safe from the effects of faction. Madison had found the answer to Montesquieu. He had also found in embryonic form his own theory of the extended federal republic.
Why are factions inevitable?
Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amounts of property, they will continue to fraternize with those people who are most similar to them. Both serious and trivial reasons account for the formation of factions, but the most important source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Men of greater ability and talent tend to possess more property than those of lesser ability, and since the first object of government is to protect and encourage ability, it follows that the rights of property owners must be protected. Property is divided unequally, and, in addition, there are many different kinds of property. Men have different interests depending upon the kind of property they own. For example, the interests of landowners differ from those of business owners. Governments must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners but also must successfully regulate the conflicts between those with and without property.
What is a faction in Madison?
Madison defines factions as groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others.
How to control a faction?
To Madison, there are only two ways to control a faction: to remove its causes and to control its effects. There are only two ways to remove the causes of a faction: destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests. Destroying liberty is a "cure worse then the disease itself," and the second is impracticable. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man, so we must accept their existence and deal with their effects. The government created by the Constitution controls the damage caused by such factions.
What was Madison's argument in Federalist 10?
Madison’s argument in Federalist 10 was that the Constitution had to walk the fine line between giving the man who was not a major landowner (and in the 18th century, land was wealth) enough say in public affairs that those on lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder weren’t disenfranchised but that the underclass (to him, “the majority”) also didn’t form factions large enough to do many of the things we’re seeing done today, including the wild printing of currency to fund “social justice programs,” which effectively would legalize theft. Or in Madison’s exact words:
What is the Federalist 10 argument?
Federalist 10 effectively touches the classic “left-vs.-right” argument: Make property rights so paramount that they ignore the people inside the machinery and you’ll have a totalitarian state that however well-ordered isn’t anyplace anyone would want to live. But become so democratic (or in modern language, “democratic socialist”) that equal outcomes become more important than equal opportunities and you’ll overthrow the republican rule of law and wind up with mob rule.
What did Madison argue about the Constitution?
Madison argued that it was the great number of factions (of political, economic and regional thought); and the genuine cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity, that would (under the proposed US Constitution) inherently avoid the tyranny of any single faction or group.
Why is Federalist 10 not cited?
Oddly enough, in its own day, Federalist 10 wasn’t often cited, perhaps because at the time of the ratification debates political parties had not yet divided so severely on Hamiltonian Federalist and Jeffersonian Republican lines. It is only just now being appreciated for what it is. But it seems in today’s world of partisan hackery to be more relevant than ever.
What is Federalist 10?
If anything, Federalist 10 was a highly prescient document as regards what can happen when those who aspire to class warfare to achieve personal political power have their way.
What did Madison's wife complain about?
The wife of a fellow politician complained that Madison was “a gloomy stiff creature” and not “even bearable in his manners - the most unsociable creature in existence.” Some politicians said that Madison was unable to control his cabinet and that he was a puppet of Jefferson. These people probably had political axes to grind, however.
How many Federalist papers were there?
There were 85 Federalist Papers. Some were written by Alexander Hamilton, some by James Madison, and the remaining by John Jay, but they each wrote under the common name Publius.
