Federalist 10, Paraphrased

As you read Federalist No. 10 through a political science lens, you will focus on the argument for why a republic is a suitable government for a large country. Pay attention to how Madison supports this claim. Try to predict what the arguments are in opposition to Madison’s defense of the then-new government created at the Constitutional Convention

ANSWERS & NON-ANSWERS HIGHLIGHTS

| Federalist 10 From the New York Packet Friday, November 23, 1787 Author: James Madison To the People of the State of New York: Among the many benefits promised by a well-built Union, none is more important than its ability to break and control the violence of factions. People who support popular governments are most worried about their character and fate when they see their tendency to this dangerous flaw…. By a faction, I mean a group of citizens, whether a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and driven by some common impulse of passion or interest, which is opposed to the rights of other citizens or to the lasting and overall interests of the community. … | Paraphrase Madison’s definition of a faction in the space below the text. A group, big or small, of people with a common goals or interests

What danger does Madison say factions present to the rights of other citizens? They may prioritize themselves over the overall good of the community. | | --- | --- | | From this view of the subject, it can be concluded that a pure democracy, which means a society with a small number of citizens who gather and run the government themselves, cannot fix the problems caused by factions. A common passion or interest will almost always be felt by a majority of the whole group. This form of government encourages people to work together, but there is nothing to stop them from sacrificing the weaker party or an unpopular individual.
Because of this, such democracies have always been chaotic and full of conflict. They have never been compatible with personal security or property rights and have usually been as short-lived as they have been violent. Political theorists who have supported this type of government have wrongly believed that by making everyone perfectly equal in their political rights, they would also be equal in their possessions, opinions, and passions…. | What is a ‘pure democracy’ according to Madison? A small number of people who run the government

Highlight or underline the claim Madison makes regarding a pure democracy’s ability to handle factions. | | A republic, which means a government where representatives are elected to make decisions, offers a different solution and promises to fix the problems we are looking at. Let's examine how it is different from a pure democracy, and we will understand both the nature of the solution and how effective it will be because of the Union. The two main differences between a democracy and a republic are: first, in a republic, the government is run by a small number of citizens who are elected by everyone else; second, a republic can include a larger number of citizens and cover a bigger area of land. | Paraphrase what Madison means by a republic in the space below the text People are elected to make choices | | The two main differences between a democracy and a republic are: first, in a republic, the government is run by a small number of citizens who are elected by everyone else; second, a republic can include a larger number of citizens and cover a bigger area of land. | Highlight or underline the claim Madison makes about why a republic is the best form of government. | | The first difference helps to improve and expand public views by having them go through a selected group of citizens whose wisdom can best understand the true interests of the country and whose patriotism and love of justice are less likely to sacrifice these interests for temporary or partial reasons. Under this system, it might happen that the public opinion, expressed by the representatives of the people, will be more in line with the public good than if it were expressed by the people themselves. However, this effect can also be reversed. People with divisive tempers, local prejudices, or selfish intentions may, through manipulation, corruption, or other means, first get elected and then betray the interests of the people. The question that arises is whether small or large republics are better for electing proper guardians of the public good, and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious reasons: | Circle the evidence on this page that Madison uses to support his claim about the best form of government. | | First, it's important to note that no matter how small the republic is, the number of representatives must be high enough to prevent a small group from taking control. Conversely, no matter how large the republic is, the number of representatives must be limited to avoid confusion from having too many people involved. Therefore, the number of representatives in both small and large republics won't match the number of citizens exactly. Since the proportion of representatives is greater in a small republic, if the proportion of capable candidates is the same in both large and small republics, the larger republic will have more options and, therefore, a better chance of making a good choice. | How is what Madison describes on this page evident in the structure of the US Government? Our 3 branch system and checks and balances allows for the Government to govern itself, even in those branches there are big groups of representatives (like in the courts) | | Second, because each representative in a large republic will be chosen by more citizens than in a small republic, it will be harder for unworthy candidates to use corrupt methods to win elections. With the votes of the people being more free, they are more likely to choose candidates who have the most admirable qualities and the best reputations. | According to Madison, how does the larger number of voters lead to a better class of representatives? Unworthy candidates might attempt to sway the voters, if the population of voters is smaller then each “Sway” is worth more, the bigger a population is then each “Sway” is worth less; Example: Swaying 1 person with 10 total voters is 10% of the vote while swaying 1 person in 100 total voters is 1% of the vote. | | It must be admitted that, like most things, there is a balance to be struck, and problems can arise on either side. If you have too many voters, the representatives may not be well-acquainted with all the local circumstances and smaller interests. If you have too few voters, the representative might become too attached to local issues and not capable of understanding and pursuing larger, national goals. The federal Constitution strikes a good balance in this regard by assigning the major national interests to the national legislature and the local and specific interests to the state legislatures. | How does Madison continue to develop the idea he introduced earlier regarding the ‘just right’ proportion of representatives to citizens or constituents? He drives home the problems that having too many or not enough have. He also addresses that the constitution does a good job at striking the ‘just right’ point. | | The other main difference is that a republic can include a larger number of citizens and a bigger area than a democracy. This makes dangerous groups less likely in a republic than in a democracy. In a smaller society, there will probably be fewer distinct parties and interests. The fewer the parties and interests, the more often a majority will be from the same party. When the majority is made up of fewer people and in a smaller area, they can more easily coordinate and carry out their plans of oppression. (The problem of a small republic ^) By extending the size of the republic, you include a greater variety of parties and interests. This makes it less likely that a majority will have a common motive to infringe on the rights of other citizens. Even if such a motive exists, it will be harder for those who feel it to realize their strength and act together. Additionally, when there is a sense of unjust or dishonorable intentions, communication is always hindered by distrust in proportion to the number of people whose agreement is needed. | Here, Madison is expanding on an earlier point about the advantages of a large republic over a smaller one. Underline what he is saying about how factions will be better managed in a large republic than in a small one.

How is that connected to protecting the rights of the people? By having a larger republic, essentially, the people are protecting each other. This is, in a way, like a political version of Herd Immunity. Basically by having more people, it’s harder for a group to be a majority and to communicate and coordinate without distrust. |

Brutus 1, Paraphrased

Source Information: Brutus No. 1, October 18, 1787;

Circle where Brutus references the “Necessary and Proper” Clause.

Use the space below the paragraph to describe how Brutus uses these clauses to support his sub-claim here The “government” is a being of it’s own right and stands without the states behind it | | Now, let's address whether it's better for the thirteen United States to become one large republic or not. It is assumed that everyone agrees that whatever government we choose should be a free one, designed to protect the liberty of American citizens and provide full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question, then, is whether such a government, based on these principles, is practical and can be effectively applied across all the United States if they were merged into a single state. | | | If we consider the opinions of the greatest and wisest thinkers on government, it seems clear that a free republic cannot succeed over a vast country like the whole United States, with its large and rapidly growing population. Among the many notable authorities on this subject, I'll mention just two. Baron de Montesquieu, in his work "The Spirit of the Laws," says that a republic naturally needs a small territory to survive. In a large republic, there are wealthy individuals who may become less moderate and might think they can achieve greatness by oppressing others. In such a republic, the public good is often sacrificed to various interests and can depend on random factors. In a smaller republic, the public interest is easier to understand and manage, and abuses are less widespread and less protected. Similarly, the Marquis Beccaria shares this view. | Circle what the “great thinkers” the author quotes have to say about a republic governing a small area and a large area.

Explain how the author uses the “great thinkers” to support his argument? Baron de Montesquieu was the introducer of republican thinking and the 3 branch systems, this is also an ethos argument. Why is it significant that he describes them as “great thinkers”? Because Baron de Montesquieu was one of the bringers of enlightened thought in the government | | The territory of the United States is very large, with nearly three million people now and the potential to hold more than ten times that number. It seems impractical for such a large and growing country to elect a representative body that can effectively express the people's views without becoming so large that it becomes incapable of handling public business. | Circle the places in this paragraph where Brutus uses the size of the United States to support his argument. | | In a republic, the people's manners, beliefs, and interests should be similar. If they aren't, there will be constant clashes of opinions, with representatives from different parts always fighting each other. This would slow down government operations and make it hard to make decisions that benefit the public. Applying this idea to the United States, it suggests that we shouldn't be governed as one single entity. The laws and customs of the states are very different in many ways, and sometimes even opposite. Each state would push for its own interests and customs. As a result, a legislature made up of representatives from these different states would be too large to make decisions effectively and would be made up of conflicting and inconsistent principles, leading to constant disputes. | Highlight or underline the claim Brutus is making here. For each of the remaining paragraphs, circle the evidence that the author uses to support the claim you identified above. | | In a republic as large as the United States, the legislature would struggle to address the different needs and concerns of its various regions. It would be too small to fully understand and respond to the local conditions and needs of different districts. Even if it could, it would be impossible to handle all the diverse issues that continually arise. In such a vast republic, high-ranking officials could easily become uncontrollable by the people and misuse their power to benefit themselves and oppress others. The collection and spending of public funds, along with other important powers, would be concentrated in the hands of a few individuals in each state. Since these roles come with great honor and benefits, they attract ambitious and self-serving individuals. Once in power, these people would likely use it to further their own interests and ambitions, making it very difficult to hold them accountable or prevent misuse of power in a large republic. These reasons suggest that a free republic cannot last over such a large area. Therefore, if the new constitution is designed to merge the thirteen states into a single entity, as it seems to be, it should not be adopted. | Restate the conclusion of the argument. The thirteen states cannot merge into a single entity. If they do then it’ll be easy for corruption and it’ll be hard for the government to truly serve its people. |

BE SURE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE NEXT PAGE!

Reflection Questions:

1. What connections can you make to government and politics today? How is power balanced in our republic?
   1. In the present day we have a lot of control in the governments hands, though states have the ability to control pivotal issues (pivotal in the eyes of the people).
2. Would you be a Federalist or Anti-Federalist? Be sure to spill the T.E.A. in your response. Ideal responses are three sentences long.
   1. I believe that I’d be a Federalist. Madison claims that in a larger republic there will be safety in the herd, essentially we can remain safe because we are different. It’s for that reason that’d I’d be a Federalist, I think that the possibility to stop disorder and to protect the minorities would be the needed traits.