Throughout American history, many individuals have made reforms to the government. However, significant actions done by George Mason and James Madison still impact society today with the Bill of Rights and the implementation of a ‘check and balance’ government system. George Mason and James Madison were both influential figures in the creation of the United States’ government structure with their oppositions to prejudiced governments. George Mason, a figure in American History who strongly advocated for individual freedoms and rights, strongly opposed the unjust actions committed by the British Parliament. The British government had been passing Acts against the will of the colonists, and Mason was upset by these actions.
“that
…show more content…
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Madison says this because he believed that all people act according to their own local situations. According to Madison, people act in the name of their own selfish reasons, instead of considering the broader greater good. Thus, states should not be trusted to be the strongest part of the government, and factions should not be trusted with the majority of the power, either. George Mason strongly opposed Madison’s idea of a new national government. Mason thought that a federal government was unfair because it left less individual and state rights. His ideal government was one with a weak central government - the opposite of Madison’s. Mason preferred this, because when the central government is weak, the states assume most of the governmental power. Mason was an anti-federalist, and he was important in the process of the addition of the Bill of Rights, which secured individual rights and gave more authority to States. Madison, a federalist, eventually
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.
James Madison, a founding father and the fourth president believed that with the corrupted nature of humans, a government is vital to prevent oppression. The
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
However, Madison explained that there are two methods of removing the causes of faction. First, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence. “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires,” Madison stated. What Madison was trying to say is that liberty and factions go hand in hand. Liberty promotes a faction to grow and get more powerful. In this way, it is better to lessen liberty among individuals to provide for what is best for the overall society. If people are not free to form and express their points of view, then factions could never take hold.
The Federalist No. 10 makes great claims in favor of the new constitution. Madison established the new government as one of the only methods in preventing the oppression of factions. The article made important assertions in the prevention of tranny of the majority present in majority factions. James Madison wrote the Federalist No. 10 to persuade the readers that we need a large and powerful republic to handle to problems of factions and prevent internal strife while maintaining
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 only way to manage faction is to remove its causes and to control its effects. By removing its causes Madison believes that liberty will be destroyed, or that by giving every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests, would be impossible because people can never all be the same. Madison wanted the United States to be a republic, a form of democracy in which power is vested in representatives, so there will be a greater number of citizens represented and we will also be able to have more control over the factions effects.
As long as there is liberty, different opinions and factions will form. Madison simply wishes to establish a system in which the detrimental effects of factions on the whole government are reduced and kept in check. He argues that a pure democracy cannot mitigate the threats of factions and that only a republic can. He believes that a system of government that allow every citizen to vote directly for laws is dangerous as common people's decisions are affected by their self-interest, instead he advocates a different form of government in which citizens elect a small body of representatives who then vote for laws. Madison’s trust in a republic is fueled and bolstered by his lack of confidence in the people’s capacity to make well-informed
James Madison, also known as “The Father on the Constitution”, contributed to quite a few intellectual events in the United States. Madison was an intelligent man with bright ideas that helped this country become the one it is today. With all his appearances to debates, committee meetings, and being elected in conventions, he was able to present us the federal government we have today and some of our basic rights. James Madison’s life and times, before, during, and after presidency is now becoming more well known and interpreted.
From the beginning, America has been a safe place for the fostering and cultivating of new thoughts and ideologies, but not without repercussion. This is evident in the life of both John Winthrop and James Madison. From early on in their political careers, both leaders faced political opposition. John Winthrop left familiarity in search of religious freedom and the pursuit of a life pleasing to God. James Madison, in creativity, thought of an entirely renovated way to successfully restructure the government of a nation that acted more as separate states. By using their backgrounds as a driving force for innovation they renovate governmental systems and lead the people from the ground up, inspired by Reformation and republicanism. Their implementation of government was different in emphasis, but the republican ideals behind it were the same.
Whose side would you have been on in the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson’s or Alexander Hamilton’s? Both of these men served under George Washington in the first presidential cabinet, yet they had very different views of what government should be (Davis 86). My objective in this research essay is to inform the reader of why there was so much controversy between these two founding fathers, and to determine which side had the better views for our newly forming country.
Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.
Madison wanted a strong central government through the expansion of powers. Applying the idea of expansion of powers to the Constitution was the best way to keep certain people or departments in the government becoming too powerful over others. That leads me to the Madisonion Model; a
James Madison, (1751-1836), 4th President of the United States of America. Although he served eight years each as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, as secretary of state, and as president, Madison's principal contribution to the founding of the United States was as "Father of the Constitution."
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