Madison's Cons And Summary : James Madison Vs. Patrick Henry

In Federalist 10 by James Madison, he addresses key issues like factions and democracy, all while focusing on the usefulness of the Constitution and the necessity of a strong central government, to defend his Federalist ideology. Personally, I agree with the foundation of his arguments, especially on the topic of forms of government, as well as the role of representation in our government.

Federalist 10 has the strongest argument that supports our current Constitution. Madison’s view goes against the traditional view that a small republic is better than a larger one. The proposed government that Madison supports was trying to establish a strong government that would be capable of controlling violence and damage that are caused by factions. Factions being a group of people who gather together to protect and promote their social economic interests and political opinions (Madison, 72). The biggest concern was that the factions would become too powerful and start to over power the government if the United States did not have a strong government. Different factions with contrasting ideas pose a threat to the wellbeing of the people. The factions could be either a majority or minority of a whole. If the factions have closer contact with one another they are more likely to participate in acts of violence, which would effect the way the United States is governed. A small republic would draw attention to everyone’s different interests, therefore highlighting the major contrasts between different

The second way in which a pure democracy differs from a republic is that a republic is much better-suited to be extended over, as Madison puts it, a “greater sphere of country”. This second difference between the two forms of government is significant in ensuring the effectiveness of a large republic over a small republic. Madison holds that there are two options in curing the effects of factions. Factions can be cured by either removing their causes or by controlling their effects. Removing the causes of factions is neither practical nor wise, as there are two ways to remove the causes of factions: destroy the liberty that fuels the formation of factions, or force the same interests and opinions on every citizen. Liberty cannot

James Madison wrote The Federalist No. 10 to inform the people about the problems and possible solutions for the formation of factions. Through multiple statements concerning the dangers of factions and the benefits of a republic, Madison’s major argument was in favor of the United States Constitution. Madison defined a faction as "A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (Madison p. 1) Factions can be compared to the modern day lobby group; or as groups of people with a common self-interest. These groups are only involved for

What Madison is saying is that factions are going to be in a society no matter what. People are going to have different opinions. Factions are always going to exist, and no matter what, the government cannot remove factions because if they do then they are eliminating peoples rights. The constitution protects against this. ?Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.? This is one reason that the Americans had success (Ziegler 216).

The foundation of a Nation has gone through the occupation from former Native Americans, Freedom of Religion that Pilgrims sought for. Towards the Inhabitants of the American Colonists. Fast forward after the American Revolution. Now that America has broken away from Britain, there was a new sense of freedom and opinions on how the nation must need a republic and form a republic. An upcoming group called the Federalists will clash with the anti- federalists of what must the order of government should be involved with running the country. James Madison who was a federalists and Patrick Henry an Anti-federalists had both given strong opinions on a new Proposition, of taking charge and forming a country that will run fairly and not dominating as a monarch. Many are familiar with the Bill of Rights that is a document listing the protection of every natural born citizen’s freedom. So the two will discuss their view of the constitution.

The primary source is Federalist paper No. 10, which is a the first of James Madison’s contributions to the series of essays known as the Federalist Papers. This essay is a highly regarded paper among the collection. The Federalist No. 10 is merely rhetoric used to rationalize the benefits of a new system of government, explain how the new union will be constructed and most crucial to the essay, sway public opinion to support the ratification of the new constitution. This particular primary source is imperative to understanding the complexity of the United States government at the time of its birth as well as now. Madison makes an argument that the expansion of the federal government is necessary to protect liberty against the excess of democracy. The document reveals the advantages of a Republic and serves as an explanation as to why the U.S. espouses a Republican form of government and the Constitution.

When debating the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were concerned with factions and their impact on society. Many feared that the government would not effectively mitigate the effects of factions. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and other Federalists argued in support of a confederate republic because direct democracies would not be able to protect society from factions. Madison states, “in the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government” (173-174). Their argument is void in that their definition of a faction is one-sided and the examples they use to support their argument on factions are superficial. However, the Federalists effectively communicate that confederate republics mitigate the harmful effects of factions better than pure democracies.

He saw the inability of Congress to enforce decisions that were plainly in its area, the inability of the Confederation to achieve unanimous agreement on amendments favored by the majority of states and attempts by several of the individual republics to secure by separate legislation ends that called imperatively for common action (Robertson). He asked could uniformity be actually secured within that relatively small but just as important place where nearly everyone agreed that uniformity was needed. His answer was no. Although new grants of power were required in order to perfect the definition of decisions that belonged to the government’s hands, the most complete authority would still prove insignificant unless the general government was actually obeyed. Constitutional reform, to be effective, would require two further changes: the people, from whom all authority derived, would have to ratify the work of the Convention; and the general government would have to be empowered with a right to veto all state laws. The sovereign people were the only ones who could remake the state as well as the federal constitutions, commanding the cooperation of the local governments where general interests were involved. The local legislation, formerly from the power of the Britain, might make it possible for the confederation government to guard its limited preserve against encroachments by the states. As well as to restrain the states from discomforting and taking advantage of each other and even from oppressing the minority within themselves by paper money which favor the interest of the majority. Thus, James Madison carefully distinguished this defensive power from the positive responsibilities the central government would have, and he insisted that he favored it because it struck him as the minimal connection of the “local sovereignties consistent with a lasting union” (Robertson). He had long ago concluded that the union would

During 1787 through 1790, the formation of the Constitution caused much controversy in America. Many of the greatest political figures joined together to agree upon what is best for the governmental structure of their nation. The two political parties engaged in these discussions were known as the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. In the novel entitled Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow and the speech “Virginia Should Reject the Constitution” given by Patrick Henry, the authors exhibit the ideological differences and similarities between federalists and anti-federalists, including their reasons for either supporting or opposing the constitution and a strong central government.

In the Federalist 10, it is mostly about the constitution. It was written by James Madison, who oversaw it. The main purpose of this article is faction. In politics, faction is people that group themselves. Madison said that in the republic. Madison says that the number one common characteristic is the largest people. The democracy would be possible because you couldn’t create a majority group of people that would have a lot in common. However now, democracy become too big in this scale. People don’t have much in common. That was the anti-federalist concerned. And now Madison came up by saying that just because there are larger group of people that doesn’t mean they are right with what they should say. Majorities are somewhat dangerous; they sometimes do foolish stuff. Also, they somewhat not to be trusted. Now, the fact that the new constitution republic is covering. Democracy is

He also attacked Patrick Henry, who did not believe that the Constitution fully protected Virginia and its people, in dramatic and finally successful debate at the Virginia ratifying convention . Madison and Jefferson viewed republican government as resting on the virtues of the people, sustained by the self-reliance of an agricultural economy and the benefits of public education, with government itself remaining "mild" and responsive to grass-roots impulses. This attitude became the foundation of the Democratic-Republican Party, which was fundamentally at odds with Hamilton's concept of a strong central government.

In the years following the Revolutionary War, the economic and political condition in the newly declared nation was disastrous. The young states were in extreme debt after the expense of the war, and economic growth was hampered by the fact that each state had its own tariffs and currencies. The Continental Congress was helpless to repair the dilemma because of its inability to tax (Garraty, 1971).

The Framer’s notion of a republic, or democratic republic form of government, rested on the necessity to limit the formation and success of factions. Yet, as Dahl argued, the irony of Madison’s aversions to factions is that, not long after the ratification of the

In discussing the Madisonian Dilemma, one must first ask, “How do you give government enough authority to preserve social order and communal values, but not so much that it places unfair and inappropriate limits on individual freedom of choice?” (Bond & Smith 2013, p. 111) This delicate balance between governmental rights and individual freedoms has been a source of much contention and debate. James Madison, a primary framer of the Constitution and author of 30 of the Federalist Papers, believed that the only way this balance of power could be achieved was through controlling the effects of factions through a representative government, fragmenting the power of that government and creating a system of checks and balances within, and