The writers of “The Federalist Papers,” Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, strongly opposed the oftentimes negative effects of factionalism on government efficiency. Within “The Federalist Paper No. 10,” Madison explains factionalism, what causes it, its effect on American society and how to limit the damage cause by opposing factions.
The nation’s original constitution was being re-evaluated by the various delegates present during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Articles of Confederation, as the preliminary constitution was christened, had been the bylaws of the United States for six years. It was intended to govern the nation until 1790. However, it was determined to be simply too ineffective because it lacked the power to levy taxes, required the unanimous approval of all thirteen states to be amended meaning it was virtually impossible for changes to be made, and regulate commerce which caused competition between states. According to the first president of the United States, George Washington, the original constitution was “a half-starved, limping Government, that appears to be always moving upon crutches and tottering at every step” (qtd. in Smith 11). Delegates convened for a Constitutional Convention to begin drafting a new, more-effective constitution. In September, copies of the proposed Constitution were given to the delegates to be presented to their respective state legislatures for ratification. The proponents of the new Constitution, christened Federalists, actively sought after its passage. While its opponents, christened Antifederalists, feared the perceived loss of states’ rights and the absence of a bill of rights. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were fervent Federalists. Thus, they...
... middle of paper ...
...wer and favor the affluent. Madison disagrees, proclaiming “a pure democracy… can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction” (Publius 671).
Works Cited
“Federalists.” U.S. History, 2011. Web. 15 October 2011.
“Hamilton, Jay, and Madison: The Federalist.” WikiSummary, 2007. Web. 15 October 2011.
Kauffmann, Bruce G. “James Madison: Godfather of the Constitution.” Archiving Early America. Web. 15 October 2011.
Nelson, Brittany. “The Federalist Papers Study Guide: Summary and Analysis of Essay 10.” GradeSaver, 10 September 2000. Web. 15 October 2011.
Publius. “The Federalist.” The Norton Anthology: American Literature. Vol. A. Ed. Jacob E. Cooke. New York: Norton, 2007. 665-674. Print.
Smith, Robert W. Spotlight on America: The Constitution. New York: TCR, 2004. Print.
“Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.” Radford University. Web. 10 October 2011.
The very last statement in the book reads, “The Federalist, the blueprint of the American nation.” This statement alone can summarize the opinion of author Ed Millican as well as many others, but many pages before that is written, the author goes on to examine and explain the many ideas surrounding Publius, including the numerous interpretations of The Federalist, as well as the political objectives of the work as well. However, instead of merely stating the facts and then contributing his opinion, Millican breaks each part of Publius, including the founding fathers who created the pen name, their individual contributions, as well as what exactly a nation-state is. With the help of a significant amount of evidence, Milican continues to assert that Publius was entirely a nationalist and believed heavily in the Lockean ideals that people want to be a unified nation. The very first chapter comes on strong by giving examples of the many interpretations of Publius. Millican then either counters these arguments or accommodates them to his own conclusions. Afterwards, Publius’ mission in pre-Constitutional America is discussed, as well as the idea that The Federalist indeed had Nationalistic tendencies. The next section of the book contributes to perhaps the most appealing aspect of the whole book. Because the concept of the nation-state was brought up in the previous chapter, Millican elaborates on exactly what a nation-state is, as well as historical examples of the evolution of central regimes, but moreover the condition of the United States at the time The Federalist was in print. This provided an excellent introduction into what becomes the lion’s share of the book, which was Hamilton, Madison, and Jay’s contribution and actions in their respective volumes of The Federalist. This is unique because virtually every attempt at the motives of these works have only taken pieces of The Federalist and used, at most, a handful of essays of the 85 that collectively make up the collection.
Federalist 10 is an article by James Madison and by far is one of the most famous. In the article Madison stressed that the strongest factor in the Constitution is that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Factions are a group of individuals who gather together in a union or political party and are against government control. They are sometimes groups called ‘sub-factions’ and they were technically a party within a party. Factions try desperately to advance their agenda, special economic interests, and political opinions. Factions work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others. To put an end to factions is inevitable. Madison summed it up best by saying as long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and have different amount of property, they will continue to associate with those similar. In other words, those who had large amounts of money and owned land/property were the typical individuals who would be in factions.
Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
The Federalist, No.10 explains the nature of factions within the government and how they can harm the implementation of proper policies and
...al system. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the true authors of The Federalist Papers. They were strong advocates for the U.S Constitution and wanted to show people the flaws of the old system.
In Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison sees Factions as being inevitable. Humans hold differing opinions and are all living under different circumstances, and are likely to group together with those most like themselves. Some groups of people will attempt to work together to benefit themselves even if it goes against public interests and even if it infringes upon the rights of others. In the Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison feared that Factions could be detrimental to the common good and in order to minimize the effects and control the effects of Factions, the best form of government would be a large republic. According to Madison, to minimize the negative consequences of Factions, they must either be controlled or the causes of Factions must be removed. Since he describes the causes of Factions being the different interests and living conditions between individuals, it can be argued that this solution is not very feasible. It would be impossible to make sure every single person makes the same amount of money, has the same goals, and even goes through similar life experiences. The greatest source of Factions, the deepest and biggest cause of Factions, according to Madison, is the unequal distribution of property. The acquisition of property or lack of property creates class divisions the foster differing interests. Since it is not possible to
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
In early American government there were two emerging political views that were blatantly obvious in the new states; federalists and anti-federalists. In this paper two main topics of interest for each of the parties will be discussed, the role that government should have according to the differing views and the subject of foreign policy.
George Browm Tindall, David Emory Shi. American History: 5th Brief edition, W. W. Norton & Company; November 1999
According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche...
Foner, Eric and John A. Garraty. The Reader’s Companion to American History. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991).