Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
However, Madison believed that a republican form of government could control for the impact of factions on the political process.
Madison believed that a republican form of government had several advantages over a straight democracy. First, under a democracy, there is no delegation of power to elected officials, which would make it unduly cumbersome to govern a country as large as America. Second, Madison believed that by entrusting the government to a small group of elected officials, one might be able to avoid the clashing and fighting that marked the existing political debate. However, Madison was not na ve; he recognized that a republican form of government was ripe for abuse if the elected offices were held by factious persons. To remedy that problem, Madison suggested that the number of elected officials be sufficiently large, "in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude." (Madison).
America's immense size also called for something other than a pure democracy, which was not dictated by practicality. Madison recognized that people in local areas were more likely to have closely aligned interests than people in disparate geographies. Therefore, a large territory demanded a republican form of government because a large territory was more likely to have factious groups. However, though a large territory was more likely to have factious...
"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it." (Madison).
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that Madison was proposing a republican form of government, which was also a federal form of government. Madison's republic relied upon the interplay between individual states and the national government. Citizens were to exercise the most control over their own small republics, the states, which would respect the individual right to political freedom. However, the federal government's job was to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their state of residence. Madison believed that, "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States." (Madison). Therefore, the two-tiered system of republican government would be best suited at protecting individual rights and controlling for the influence of factions.
Works Cited
Madison, James. "The Federalist Papers: No. 10." The Avalon Project at Yale University.
November 23, 1787. Yale University. 22 Oct. 2007 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm.
Works Cited
Madison, James. "The Federalist Papers: No. 10." The Avalon Project at Yale University.
November 23, 1787. Yale University. 22 Oct. 2007 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm.
Federalist Papers The purpose of the Federalist Papers The Federalist Papers were prepared to ensure that a constitution was ratified to provide a perfect union. The Papers focused on the concept of a perfect and improved union. While this could be the primary purpose of the document, it was also concerned with other things. Aspects of the federalist like welfare, safety, and union are inseparable, and the union seems to be much
Federalist Paper #10, James Madison discusses the Union's ability to control and break the influence of specific factions over the governmental process. The paper includes many strengths, and a few weaknesses. Yet the overall paper convinced me of the purpose of the Union in this capacity. Federalist Paper # 10 begins with a discussion of the problem at hand, that of how to control the factions of a nation. The paper
The Federalists advocated a strong central government while the Anti-Federalists advocated state governments. The former feared that division would lead to fighting and instability. The latter feared that centralized power would lead to the kind of totalitarianism that the American Revolutionaries had just victoriously opposed in the War for Independence. This paper will describe why I would align myself with the Anti-Federalists because of their aversion for centralized power. The difference
Introduction The penning of the American Constitution during the 1787 Philadelphia convention was followed by its ratification. This formal process delineated within Article 7 necessitated at least 9 states’ agreement to implement the Constitution, prior to actually enacting it (Pole, 1987). Whilst the Federalists supported ratification, Anti-Federalists were against it. Those opposed to the constitution’s ratification claimed that it accorded disproportionate power to federal authorities, whilst robbing local and state bodies of their power, excessively. According to
Federalist papers sought to inspire a nation to generate a sense of identity and freedom not just from the British government and British identity, but also from the notion that the American government is flawed and ineffective. Several federalist papers in particular, discuss how the government should be as well as help deal with some of the fears and desires of the American public. The Federalist papers that will
While 10 may be the most important paper, 51 is the one that is still most often cited. The differences between the two papers are easy to spot. Ten talks about something that plagues the government and political parties today, and Madison's ideas about how to avoid those problems was largely ignored in the Constitution. The political parties did not exist at first, but they started up rather quickly, and