James Madison’s Federalist Papers' Comparison of the Republic and Democatic Governement

Two competing political philosophies have always existed throughout the United States’ relatively short history: one seeking to increase the power of the central government, and one seeking to decrease it. During the 1800s these two conflicting philosophies were acted out by the Federalist and the Democratic Republican parties, respectively. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, advocated the importance of a strong central government in leading the country forward, while the Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, promoted increasing the common man’s role in government. Although both political parties had good intentions for the future of the United States, the Federalist Party was much more effective at uniting the American

From 1801-1817 there was a clear separation of the United States. The Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were in strong opposition of one another. Though the Republicans were usually characterized as strict constructionists, who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the Federalists, both Jefferson and Madison's presidencies highlighted Federalist ideals in many of their decisions. This included Jefferson's unconstitutional decision in purchasing the vast Louisiana territory and Madison's

In the presence of a powerful fraction, there is nothing to protect the minority factions from being overpowered; that a true direct democracy would be incapable of maintaining the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. A large republic government will impart power to elected representatives, making the power of factions to affect the vote is greatly decreased. Madison believes that this type of government should be put in the new constitution.

Federalists and Democratic-Republicans have many different beliefs and views on our constitution.Federalist believe our country should be ruled by the “Best people”.Federalists think our country should be ran by the educated and wealthy.Most federalist shared a common view that people were selfish and only out for themselves so they distrusted any system of government that gave too much power to common people.There logic was since these people were given the education and background they had the right foundation to run the country wisely and they were trusted to make good decisions.This view came dangerously close to monarchy ,or being ruled by a king.

The origins of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties can be traced back to the early 1790s. Initially, the Federalists, or broad constructionists, favored the growth of federal power and a strong central government. The Federalists promulgated a loose interpretation of the Constitution, which meant that they believed that the government could do anything by the implied powers of the Constitution or that congress had the right to interpret the Constitution based on connotation. On the contrary, the Democratic-Republicans favored the protection of states’ rights and the strict containment of federal power. The Democratic-Republicans were strict constructionists and they

Both the federalists and the democratic-republic strongly agree that they needed a capable leader for the nation. The two parties knew that monarchy wasn’t the proper form of government for the rapidly-growing society.The idea of a monarchy never even came about when they were discussing their thoughts. When James Madison came up with the term ‘republic’, he had quite the opposite of a monarchy in mind. The republicans even feared government ruled by few people. Although both sides agreed on

In the 1790s, partisan politics emerged due to the opposing views on how the new nation should be governed. The two parties that developed were the Federalists and the Democratic –Republicans. The Republicans were a group that believed in the strong states’ rights, restricted power for the federal government, and a stern clarification of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the party. The Republicans ideal government favored liberty and believed that the government should be receptive to the people. The party believed that the states’ should be dominant in governing because they wanted assurance that individual liberties would be protected from government tyrants.

The Federalist Papers Number 10 is written by James Madison and explains the necessity of the Constitution to protect our country from factions. A faction is “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent aggregate interests of the community (Publius, 72).” Publius states that there are two ways to get rid of factions. The first way to eliminate a faction is to take the Liberty away from all of the people in the faction. The other way to cure a faction is to give everyone the same opinion. Both of this solutions are not possible

James Madison prided himself on his knowledge from books and theories. Madison was born into a class of Virginia planters. His father was the wealthiest landowner in Virginia and it was known that Madison would lead a financially secure life. This factor helped him in his pursuit of education. He gained opportunities to go to elite schools because of his status. Madison was ambitious and he graduated from the College of New Jersey a year early. He stayed to pursue further studies. Madison gained an accumulation of knowledge. He was interested more in books than in farming unlike his father and grandfather. He looked for opportunities to expand his understanding of the world. His

After reading our textbook chapters for this week's assignment I was lucky to learn about the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.The establishment of the US Constitution was brought with a heated debate concerning the future of our nation.These certain debates basically led to the establishment of two of the opposing camps.One of the opposing camps was the Federalists however,there opposing opponent was the Anti-Federalist.Both of their agruments concerns the role of our national government and its power over the interest of the general public.However,they both stood on a totally different ground.The Anti-Federalists agrued that they couldn't

There are numerous possible conclusions as to what the Constitution may have looked like had James Madison gotten his way at the debates in the Federal Convention. Initially, Madison’s vision of government lined up with the Virginia Plan presented by Edmund Randolph to the Federal Convention on May 29th, 1787. This plan stressed the interest of a stronger national government, with representation in the legislative branch based on the apportionment of people, instead of states. It is possible to speculate that this early version of Madison’s vision of a constitution stood no chance of ratification by the minimum required, nine of the thirteen states, as the proposed union diminished the lesser-populated states equal stature as a state. Nevertheless, if the Virginia plan had been adopted as our national government there would be an energetic national government, composed of three branches, with supreme authority over the states.

In order to correct “factious spirits that have tainted our public administrations”(Madison, 72), the government must control the effects of factions. He argues, “as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success... will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters (Madison, 77).” With this statement by creating an extended republic with more representatives, the tyranny of a majority could be avoided with the addition of more qualified, democratically-elected representatives. As a result, Madison felt that creating an extended republic with more representatives with more people voting would quell the effects of

During the early days of this country the people of America were in a debate over how this country should be governed. The main controversy was over whether a strong federal government was better than strong states. Out of this controversy two factions arose, the federalists and the anti-federalists. These two different styles of governing continued over even after the constitution was ratified. This eventually led to the party system we see today.

It was John Adams who noted that "men in general, in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also little too acquainted with public affairs for a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own."1 This shared attitude guided the Founding Fathers in their establishment of what has become America's modern day political system. When today's modern day student is asked just what sort of system that was, it seems the answer is always "democracy." In reality, the House of Representatives is the nearest idea in accordance with a system of democracy that this country would ever reach.2 Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were the wealth and success of their time, and coincidentally, it was these same

Political philosophies amongst Federalist and Democratic Republicans have been much conflicted throughout the years. The Federalist who was led by Alexander Hamilton were seeking to increase the power of the central government then there was the Republicans who were led by Thomas Jefferson whom were seeking to decrease the power of the central government. The Federalists advocated the importance of a strong central government to protect the republic from “the imprudence of democracy” leading the country forward, while the Democratic Republicans promoted increasing the common man’s role in government. Although both political parties had good intentions for the future of the United States, the Federalist Party was much more effective at uniting