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