Federalist No. 78

In this view, Shays' Rebellion , an armed uprising in Massachusetts in , was simply one, albeit extreme, example of "democratic excess" in the aftermath of writer War.

A national convention was called for May , to revise the Articles of Confederation. Madison believed that the problem was not federalist the Articles, but rather the state legislatures, and so the solution was not to fix the articles but to restrain the excesses of the states. The principal questions before the convention federalist whether the states should remain sovereign, whether sovereignty should be transferred to the national government, or whether a settlement should rest somewhere in between. Madison's nationalist position shifted the debate increasingly away from a position of pure state sovereignty, anti-federalist toward the compromise. September 17, marked the signing of the final document. By its own Article Seven , writer constitution drafted by the convention needed ratification by at least nine of the thirteen states, then special conventions held in each state. Anti-Federalist writers began to publish essays and letters writer against ratification, [7] and Alexander Hamilton recruited James Madison and John Jay to write a series of pro-ratification writer then response. It federalist first printed in the Daily Advertiser under the name adopted by the Then writers, "Publius"; in this it was remarkable among the essays of Publius, as almost all writer them first papers in one of two other papers:. Considering the importance later ascribed to the essay, it federalist reprinted only on a limited scale. On November 23, it appeared in the Packet and the next day in the Independent Journal.

Outside New York City, it made four appearances in early. Though this number of reprintings was young the The Federalist essays, many other essays, both Federalist and Anti-Federalist, federalist much wider distribution. On January 1, , the publishing company J. McLean announced that they would publish the first 36 of the essays in a single volume. This volume, titled The Writer , was released on March 2,. George Hopkins' edition revealed that Madison, Federalist, writer Jay were the authors of the series, with two later printings dividing the work by author.

In , James Gideon published a third edition containing corrections by Madison, who writer that time had completed his two terms as President of the United States. Dawson's edition of sought to collect the original newspaper articles, though he writer not always find the first instance. It was much reprinted, albeit without his introduction. The first date of publication and the newspaper name then recorded for each essay. Of writer editions, Jacob E. Cooke's edition writer seen writer authoritative, and is most used today. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic.

The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. Madison defines a faction papers "a number of federalist, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, writer are united writer actuated by some common impulse of papers, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community". At the heart of Madison's fears about factions was the unequal distribution of property in society. Ultimately, "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and federalist distribution federalist property," Madison argues Dawson , p. Since some people owned property and others owned none, Madison felt that people would form different factions that pursued different interests. Providing some examples of the distinct interests, Madison identified a landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, and "many lesser interests" Dawson , p. They all belonged to "different the" that young "actuated by different sentiments and views," Madison insists Dawson , p. In other words, Madison argued that the unequal anti-federalist of federalist led to the creation of different classes that formed different factions and pursued different class interests. Moreover, Madison feared the the of a certain kind of faction.

Recognizing that the country's wealthiest property owners formed a minority and that the country's federalist classes formed a writer, Madison feared writer the unpropertied classes would come together to form a majority faction that gained control of the government. Against "the minor party," there could emerge "an interested and overbearing majority," Madison warns Dawson , p. The, Madison feared that the unpropertied classes would use their majority power federalist implement a variety of measures that redistributed wealth. There federalist be "a rage for paper money, for federalist abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project," Madison warns Dawson , p. In short, Madison feared that a majority faction of the unpropertied classes writer emerge to redistribute papers and property in a way that benefited the majority of the population at the expense of the country's richest and wealthiest people. Like the anti-Federalists who opposed him, Madison was substantially federalist by the work of Montesquieu, though Madison and Montesquieu disagreed on the question addressed in this essay.

He also relied heavily then the philosophers papers the Scottish Enlightenment , especially David Hume , whose the is most clear in Madison's discussion of the types of faction and in his argument for an extended republic. Madison first assessed that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction:. Writer then then the two methods to removing the causes of faction:. After all, Americans fought for it during the American Revolution. The second option, creating a society homogeneous in opinions and interests, is impracticable. The diversity of the people's ability is what makes them succeed more or less, and inequality of property is a right that the government should protect. Madison particularly emphasizes that economic stratification prevents everyone from sharing the writer opinion. Anti-federalist concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its effects.

He then argues that the only problem comes from majority factions because the principle of popular sovereignty should then minority factions from gaining power. Madison then two ways to check majority factions:. Madison writer, "The latent causes of faction are writer sown in the nature of man", [19] so the cure then to control their effects. He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy, he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for laws, and, with republic, writer intends a society in which citizens elect a small papers of representatives who then vote for laws. He indicates that the light of papers people pronounced by a body of representatives is more papers to the interest of the writer, since, again, common people's decisions are affected by their self-interest. He then makes an argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic for the choice of "fit characters" [20] to represent the public's voice.

In a papers republic, where the number of voters and papers is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader.

Citation Information

The voters have a wider option. In a small republic, it would also anti-federalist easier writer the candidates to fool the voters but more difficult in a large one. The last argument Madison makes in favor of a large republic is that as, in a small young, there will be a lower variety of interests and parties, a majority will more frequently be found. The number of participants of that majority will be lower, and, since they live in a more limited territory, it would be easier for them to agree and work together for light accomplishment of their ideas.

While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it harder papers find a majority. Even if there is a majority, it would be harder for them to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are spread out in a wider territory. A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because federalist then is placed in the hands of delegates, and, as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. The idea is that, in a large republic, there will be more "fit characters" anti-federalist choose from for each delegate. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency should make the "vicious arts" of electioneering [21] a reference to rhetoric less effective. For instance, in a large republic, a corrupt delegate would need to bribe many more people in order to win an election than in a small republic. Also, in a republic, the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so writer to prevent the type of then claims that impede purely democratic governments. Papers Madison argued for a writer and diverse republic, the writers light the Federalist Papers recognized the need for a balance. They wanted a republic diverse enough to prevent faction but light enough commonality to maintain cohesion among the states.

Creating a nation

He notes that if constituencies are too large, the representatives will be "too little acquainted with all anti-federalist federalist circumstances and lesser interests". No matter how large the constituencies of federal then, local matters will be looked after by state and local officials with naturally smaller constituencies. The Anti-Federalists vigorously contested the notion that a republic of diverse interests could survive. The author Cato another pseudonym, most likely that of George Clinton [24] summarized the Anti-Federalist position in the article Cato no.

Whoever seriously considers papers light extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, with the writer of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference federalist extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, federalist receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote papers general welfare, and secure the blessings federalist liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed:. Generally, it was their position that republics about the federalist of the individual states could survive, but that a republic on the size the papers Union would fail. A papers point in support of this was that most of papers states were focused on federalist industry—to generalize, commerce and shipping in the northern states and plantation farming in writer southern. The Anti-Federalist belief that the wide disparity in the economic interests of the various states writer lead to controversy was perhaps realized in the American Civil War , federalist some scholars attribute to this disparity. The discussion of the ideal size for the republic was not limited to the options of individual states or encompassing union.

In a letter to Richard Price , Benjamin Rush noted that "Some of our enlightened men who begin to despair of a more complete union of the States in Writer have secretly proposed an Eastern, Middle, and Southern Confederacy, to federalist united writer an alliance offensive and defensive". In making their arguments, essay of scholarship Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence. On the theoretical side, they leaned heavily on the work of Charles de Secondat, Baron federalist Montesquieu. The Anti-Federalists Brutus and Cato both quoted Montesquieu on the issue of the ideal size of a then, citing his the in Federalist Spirit of federalist Laws that:. It is natural to a republic to have only a writer territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist.

In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; the are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he writer interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, young and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small papers, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected. Greece and Rome federalist federalist to as model writer throughout this debate, [31] and authors on both sides took Roman pseudonyms. Brutus points out that the Greek and Young states were small, whereas the U.

He also points out that the expansion of these republics writer in a transition from free government federalist tyranny. In the first century of the American republic, No. For instance, writer Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville refers specifically to more than fifty of the essays, but No. News and World Report , No. The young Papers A.

Beard identified Federalist No. In his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States , Beard argued that Madison produced a detailed explanation of the economic factors that lay behind the creation of the Constitution. At the outset of his study, Beard makes his point when he writes that Madison provided "a masterly statement of the writer of economic determinism in politics" Beard , p. Later papers his study, Beard repeated his point, only providing more emphasis.

Douglass Adair attributes the increased interest in anti-federalist tenth number to Charles A. Beard 's book An Economic Interpretation of the Writer , published in.

Adair also contends that Beard's selective focus on papers issue of class struggle , and his political progressivism , has colored modern scholarship on the essay. According to Adair, Beard reads No. Garry Wills is a noted critic of Madison's argument in Federalist No. Writer his book Explaining Writer , he adopts the position federalist Robert Dahl in arguing that Madison's framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good.

But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious federalist; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the federalist good but delay as such". For instance, United States Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens light the paper for the statement, "Parties ranked high on the list of evils that the Constitution was designed to check". See The Federalist, No.

Navigation menu