Skip Nav

Federalist No. 10

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

❶In other words, Madison argued that the unequal distribution of property led to the creation of different classes that formed different factions and pursued different class interests.

Why Were the Federalist Papers Written?

Analysis of Federalist #10
Federalist Essays No.10 - No.17
Navigation menu

There were two ways of removing the causes of factions, or political parties. The first was to destroy the liberty essential to their existence. This remedy would be worse than the disease. The second was to give everyone the same opinions, passions, and interests. Woven into the fabric of all societies, deeply planted in the very nature of man, were conflicting ideas, interests, and passions. The greatest source of factions had always been the various and unequal distribution of property, said Madison:.

Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors,. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation. The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

Such effects could be better controlled in a large society under a representative form of government than in a small society under a popular form of government.

The proposed constitution would check the power of factions by balancing one against the other. Also, in a republic, the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so as to prevent the type of frivolous claims that impede purely democratic governments. Though Madison argued for a large and diverse republic, the writers of the Federalist Papers recognized the need for a balance. They wanted a republic diverse enough to prevent faction but with enough commonality to maintain cohesion among the states.

He notes that if constituencies are too large, the representatives will be "too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests".

No matter how large the constituencies of federal representatives, local matters will be looked after by state and local officials with naturally smaller constituencies. The Anti-Federalists vigorously contested the notion that a republic of diverse interests could survive. The author Cato another pseudonym, most likely that of George Clinton [24] summarized the Anti-Federalist position in the article Cato no. Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: Generally, it was their position that republics about the size of the individual states could survive, but that a republic on the size of the Union would fail.

A particular point in support of this was that most of the states were focused on one industry—to generalize, commerce and shipping in the northern states and plantation farming in the southern. The Anti-Federalist belief that the wide disparity in the economic interests of the various states would lead to controversy was perhaps realized in the American Civil War , which some scholars attribute to this disparity.

The discussion of the ideal size for the republic was not limited to the options of individual states or encompassing union. In a letter to Richard Price , Benjamin Rush noted that "Some of our enlightened men who begin to despair of a more complete union of the States in Congress have secretly proposed an Eastern, Middle, and Southern Confederacy, to be united by an alliance offensive and defensive".

In making their arguments, the Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence. On the theoretical side, they leaned heavily on the work of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. The Anti-Federalists Brutus and Cato both quoted Montesquieu on the issue of the ideal size of a republic, citing his statement in The Spirit of the Laws that:. It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist.

In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents.

In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected. Greece and Rome were looked to as model republics throughout this debate, [31] and authors on both sides took Roman pseudonyms. Brutus points out that the Greek and Roman states were small, whereas the U. He also points out that the expansion of these republics resulted in a transition from free government to tyranny.

In the first century of the American republic, No. For instance, in Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville refers specifically to more than fifty of the essays, but No. News and World Report , No. The historian Charles A.

Beard identified Federalist No. In his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States , Beard argued that Madison produced a detailed explanation of the economic factors that lay behind the creation of the Constitution. At the outset of his study, Beard makes his point when he writes that Madison provided "a masterly statement of the theory of economic determinism in politics" Beard , p.

Later in his study, Beard repeated his point, only providing more emphasis. Douglass Adair attributes the increased interest in the tenth number to Charles A.

Beard 's book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution , published in Adair also contends that Beard's selective focus on the issue of class struggle , and his political progressivism , has colored modern scholarship on the essay.

According to Adair, Beard reads No. Garry Wills is a noted critic of Madison's argument in Federalist No. In his book Explaining America , he adopts the position of Robert Dahl in arguing that Madison's framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character.

What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such". For instance, United States Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens cites the paper for the statement, "Parties ranked high on the list of evils that the Constitution was designed to check".

See The Federalist, No. Madison's argument that restraining liberty to limit faction is an unacceptable solution has been used by opponents of campaign finance limits. Justice Clarence Thomas , for example, invoked Federalist No. Rather than adopting the repressive 'cure' for faction that the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy". From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Accessed January 22, See also "The Federalist Papers: Volume 1, Chapter 4, Document University of Chicago Press.

Retrieved January 22, Referenced November 20, Volume 1, Chapter 17, Document Volume 1, Chapter 7, Document 7. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world".

Jones , U. Brown , U. Fame and the Founding Fathers. The Federalist with Letters of "Brutus". The MacMillan Company, Are We to Be a Nation? Harvard University Press, University Press of Kansas, De Pauw, Linda Grant. New York State and the Federal Constitution.

Cornell University Press, The Political Theory of The Federalist. University of Chicago Press, The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers. Politics, Literature, and the American Language, Yeoman Politician of the New Republic. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, The Summer of The Men Who Invented the Constitution. The Creation of the American Republic, — The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States. Edited by Jacob E.

Wesleyan University Press, Edited by Henry B. Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Notes of the Secret Debate of the Federal Convention of Retrieved October 1, Retrieved August 23,

What Is Madison's Thesis in Federalist Paper Number 10?

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Summary. 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.

Privacy FAQs

Federalist #10 is Madison’s first essay in The luvenagesov.ga contains 23 paragraphs. The “violence of faction” is the “mortal disease” of popular governments.

About Our Ads

Federalist Paper #10 Analysis Federalist Paper # 10 Essay In perhaps the greatest installment of the federalist papers, James Madison describes how factions, which work against the interest of the public, can be controlled through a constitutional government. Federalist No. 10 was written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius and addresses the divisive problems caused by political factions. It is regarded as a seminal work and is frequently.

Cookie Info

Summary. This essay, the first of Madison's contributions to the series, was a rather long development of the theme that a well-constructed union would break and control the violence of faction, a "dangerous vice" in popular governments. A summary of Federalist Essays No - No in The Founding Fathers's The Federalist Papers (). Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of The Federalist Papers () and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, .