Federalist No. 10

No. 10

What struck me as most remarkable as I read No. 10 and researched the framing of the Constitution was the enormity of the Framers' undertaking. Fortunately, both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on two fundamental principles: that governments must be founded on consent of the governed and must secure the rights of the governed. However, the disagreements over how to best administer these two principles were deep. Debate centered around means, not ends. Refer HERE for further explanation.

It should be remembered, too, that the Federalist Papers were written not only to dispute the Anti-Federalist cause, but also to win the support and quell the anxieties of a large and dispersed population.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison elaborates on Alexander Hamilton's article "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection."

Madison claimed that factions were an inescapable danger to the States of America and proposed "that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." This is central to his point and illuminates the essence of American order. The purpose of government is to ensure freedom and order to all individuals even against the will of numerous and powerful factions.




Madison goes on to outline why a republic is better than a democracy. He does this not to dispute direct democracy (although it should be disputed) but instead to show the strengths of and case for a republic of united states.

He supports republican form of government in contrast with pure democracy for two reasons.

First, republicanism serves serves to "refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country....it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves."

The second great difference between pure democracy and the republican form of government is the application as a population grows and expands. This point, of course, would be proven in the next two centuries to be revealed truth as the nation's population grew exponentially.



My favorite part of No. 10 is the second to last paragraph which deserves to be quoted in its entirety:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

This is what I believe is the genius of Federalist No. 10 which has proven the Federalist cause as a righteous one, that unwise leaders disobedient to the wisdom of the ages should rise up with popular support to subvert the freedom and natural rights of others should (and could) be kept in check by their neighboring states for the sake of the union and good of the order.

Consider any of the contemporary offenses on individual freedom instead of "a rage for paper money" or "an equal division of property" and his point immediately becomes relevant. Many of the demands of the socialist nanny state have not been applied to the entire country or included in the Constitution because "improper and wicked project[s]" are "less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than an entire state."

To compare the freedoms guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights to the rights sanctimoniously demanded in the UN Declaration of Human Rights shows the difference between the wisdom of the American Framers and the buffoonery and arrogance of the United Nations. If you haven't taken a look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights in awhile, it's worth a look just for the laughs. They are hilarious and a great contrast to America's Bill of Rights.

SM

Federalist #10

Feel free to blog about Federalist #10 either by creating a new post or commenting on this one!

Devin's E-mail, 4/02/2008

All, I've copied an e-mail from Devin that he sent out April 2. I hope this will be the first, in a long line of many posts to come. This e-mail provides a great start to our blog and to our understanding of the Federalist Papers.

PERSPECTIVE: I thought it was interesting that these essays were written to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed US Constitution and in doing so, they became a timeless and very valuable reference to "help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution." Also interesting, were the equally popular anti-federalist papers being written and published at the same time by an unknown author "who went by the pseudonym Brutus, in honor of the Roman republican who was one of those who assassinated Julius Caesar, to prevent him from overthrowing the Roman Republic."

THOUGHT: To better appreciate The Papers and gain a deeper understanding of the political climate of that day, I think it's worth reading the essays of Brutus as well. How incredible was this period of history in our quickly-forming United States? Such profound yet opposite opinions being made easily accessible to the public; the impact that must have had on the "citizen" through his participation or, at the very least, his interest in the current formation of the country. I wonder what impact "The Papers" had on the papers...that is, the Press? Did the Federalist Papers set new standards of what was considered regular content in the newspapers of that time?

REFERENCES:

About the Federalist Papers

The Federalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.

The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal. They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.

The electronic text of The Federalist used here was compiled for Project Gutenberg by scholars who drew on many available versions of the papers.

One printed edition of the text is The Federalist, edited by Jacob E. Cooke (Middletown, Conn., Wesleyan University Press, 1961). Cooke's introduction provides background information on the printing history of The Federalist; the information provided above comes in part from his work.

"Brutus"

The series of anti-federalist writing which most nearly paralleled and confronted The Federalist was a series of sixteen essays published in the New York Journal from October, 1787, through April, 1788, during the same period The Federalist was appearing in New York newspapers, under the pseudonym "Brutus", in honor of the Roman republican who was one of those who assassinated Julius Caesar, to prevent him from overthrowing the Roman Republic. The essays were widely reprinted and commented on throughout the American states. The author is thought by most scholars to have been Robert Yates, a New York judge, delegate to the Federal Convention, and political ally of anti-federalist New York Governor George Clinton. All of the essays were addressed to "the Citizens of the State of New York".

Hello and Welcome!

Hello all!

Welcome to The Founding Father's Club. I have attempted to put this site together as an easier method by which we can communicate our thoughts, ideas, complaints, etc. I am extremely excited and am looking forward to reading everyones posts.
If anyone has any suggestions for the blog content and look please let me know (I am not very good with creating websites and hope this will work out).

We will need to come up with somewhat of a structured schedule for reading whatever document we choose. I am thinking on a weekly basis. I will communicate with you all and see what the general consensus is. There are numerous sites whereby we can locate historical documents. As Adam pointed out earlier, The LOC Thomas page is very good.

Devin has also pointed out an important piece of information... we should all cite our sources. I am not suggesting an MLA or APA type citation, just a helpful link or two where you've found anything that's either, A) not common knowledge, B) controversial, C) important, or for any other reason. If you all have any questions or suggestions about the content of this club please let me know also. I will be posting again shortly with the agreed upon reading schedule.

Thanks for your interest in The Founding Father's Club and I hope everyone has fun!

Travis