ipl-logo

The Role Of James Madison's Arguments In A Large Republic

525 Words3 Pages

1. How does James Madison describe "factions"? James Madison describes “factions” as a number of citizens (could be of majority or minority of society) who are in unity over a common impulse, passion, or an interest. The thing could be a permanent and aggravated interest of the community as a whole. With factions being brought in because of civil ideals and ways. James madison believes that the given nature of man, factions are/is inevitable to happen. He sees things as long as people having different opinions, with different amounts of wealth, property, etc., those people will continually associate among people just like them. So in general James Madison defines “factions” as citizens united by some sort of passion or interest or impulse. 2. Why does Madison argue in favor of a large republic? Explain. In small republic there is less choices and less of a voice to be given for the people. With a better fit for characters to have a representation for the public’s voice. In a larger republic …show more content…

Madison talks about how a small republic has less diversity in thought and choice. Which can be true with smaller groups there is more people so with more people comes more ideas. For example Vatican city which has a very small population and very similar ideas vs America, a country full of many ideas people and political parties. A large republic overall brings out more diversity because of larger numbers the more likelihood of more ideas and cultural influence. Madison also talked about how there is a smaller chance of electing a “bad” candidate. I also agree with that notation somewhat because there are more voices and people to stop something like that from happening. But if they all were muted that could cause an issues (if one group were to rise above all). Overall though I agree with the idea of less of a majority and more options (as in

Show More
Related
1255 Words | 6 Pages

Tola APGOPO 10/9/12 Exemplar Large Republic: Best Control of Effects of Factions Federalist 10 Summary: In Federalist 10, James Madison or Publius asserts that the Constitution establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. He states that Antifederalist complain that the government is too unstable, claim rival parties disregard the public good, and that decisions are made by the majority rather than by justice and the rights of the minority. Madison goes on to define a faction as a group of citizens, either a majority or minority, whose actions are motivated by a passion or interest that hurts the rights of other citizens or goes against the best interests of the

Read More
243 Words | 1 Pages

Perhaps the most famous Federalist paper, Federalist 10, starts off by saying that one of the biggest arguments that favors the Constitution is that it creates a government suited to minimize the harm caused by factions. Faction, in this case, is defined as a group of people whether a minority or majority based on class, race, and profession that all share a common interest. It was inevitable that factions would occur and perhaps the defining characteristic was the unequal distribution of property. This would ultimately lead the poor without property to become the majority in a “tyranny of the masses.” Madison believed that there were two solutions in preventing majority factions, 1) Remover the causes, and 2) Control the effects.

Read More
403 Words | 2 Pages

Throughout Federalist 10 Madison addresses the issue of political factions, or parties, and how they are a problem, and how to deal with them. Madison describes factions as like minded people who come together to impose their views on others. The first method Madison proposes is to remove the causes that make the faction, and the second being by controlling its effects. In order to do those things Madison says that we must destroy liberty, and give everyone the same opinions, passions and the interests respectfully. Neither of these ideas would work however because if you destroy liberty just because it gives rise to factions, you would be destroying something that is good just because it has a small side effect that can be seen as

Read More
1552 Words | 7 Pages

Madison suggests removing the problem of faction “by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence (book).” He then goes on to say right after that in the fifth paragraph that destroying liberty would not work because it defeats the purpose of creating a free society and in the sixth paragraph he calls it impractical (need to cite?). Calling it impractical is a good point because if someone were to try and take liberty from everyone people would revolt and fight for their rights and possibly become more set in their faction which is the opposite of what they want. “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire” what Madison means is that wanting to get rid of liberty because of factions is like trying to get rid of air because it fuels fire, and without air we would die(book). The other thing Madison states in his first argument is the idea of “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests (book).

Read More
501 Words | 3 Pages

Madison’s essay reflects the fear many had of a tyrannical government and the desire to ensure that the country didn’t revert back to that which it had just escaped from. He notes the necessity to prevent any one faction or group from gaining too much power and oppressing those in the minority. The separation of powers was set in place to ensure that this could not happen. Even if one group decides they want something, the other two have the equal authority to prevent it should it not represent the country as a whole.

Read More
343 Words | 2 Pages

James Madison’s Federalist 10 was written amid criticisms that a republican form of government had never been successful on a large scale. Madison’s argument was that a well-constructed union could control factions. He argued that in order to control factions from their causes, we would need to either give up liberty or free thought. Since we cannot infringe upon these two natural rights, we must move on to controlling the effects. A republic, Madison argues, would be able to do this because the people choose the representatives, and they choose representatives who they feel best represent their opinions.

Read More
1253 Words | 6 Pages

What is the difference between a.. Federalist Paper 10, authored by James Madison, defines factions as groups of people who share similar interests that may infringe upon the rights and overall welfare of their community. According to Madison, these divisive collectives are a result of both human nature and property distribution among

Read More
1042 Words | 5 Pages

Without a large republic not only are you going to have the tyranny of the majority, but you are not going to have a unified country. If we become factionalized to the point where every person represents their own views we are going to be headed towards civil war quickly, and we are going to break up as a nation. By having a large republic and by having all of these voices silenced in their factions we can stay coherent. Madison comes to the conclusion we are not going to have a large enough faction to tear the nation apart, but he is wrong because different opinions will always exist as long as people are free and self-love exist. These factions are inevitably going to tear the nation apart.

Read More
298 Words | 2 Pages

The Great Compromise which was founded at the Constitutional Convention wasn't formed without trouble. Many of the delegates that participated in the convention were wealthy landowners and lawyers, who owned many slaves. They failed to notice the diversity that excited within the nation. As they talked how to repair the Articles of Confederation, issues would arise that would create continuous debates amongst each other. One of the issues that would arise would be the nature of the new government.

Read More
978 Words | 4 Pages

10 in an attempt to ratify the Constitution, the new form of government for the United States. In the Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison analyzed the way to deal with facts, made a comparison between a pure democracy and a republic, and made another comparison on whether a small government or a large government would be the best for America. He informed the people that there is not a way to completely get rid of factions, but there are ways to deal with them. One great way to deal with factions is by having a government that knows how to control and deal with their effects. Madison believes that a republic can do that job better than a democracy, because a democracy is a small society of people who can not admit there is a cure to factions.

Read More
1219 Words | 5 Pages

10 and no. 51, in regards with factions. Madison proposed a large republic, in which the minority and majority could chose representatives, the most properly informed, to make decisions without disregarding the good/interests of the other. In this Madison also expresses the loyalty of the representatives is demanding, which is very similar to Locke’s view on the on the government’s obligation and duty to never serve against the people and always in the best interest of the people. In Locke’s suggestion of the three branches he also bring along with it the urge for checks and balances, an urge that Madison acknowledged and engaged in densely when trying to establish the Constitution as a savior. As Madison stated, “government…greatest of all reflections on human nature” (Madison Federalist no. 51), Locke also, to a lesser extent, agreed, rather introduced this thought.

Read More
719 Words | 3 Pages

Madison brings up that it isn’t possible to divide power absolutely equally and “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” (2). And so, the legislative branch will be divided even more to try and combat the unbalance of power. Madison thought this system was a good method because he believed that it was part of human nature to have conflicting ideas and wants, and so each branch could keep the others in line and therefor no one power is above the others. Furthermore, Madison believes a bigger government with multiple branches is better because then it becomes difficult for one

Read More
1112 Words | 5 Pages

Thus causing even more conflict, especially amongst those not in the South. Another controversial issue was federalism because Marshall gave the national government a vast amount of power over state 's rights, and Taney believed more in giving power to the state rather than the national government. In addition, this is when outside groups started forming and lobbying their influence over government decisions, whether it is pertaining to slavery, rights, or economic interests. James Madison regarded “factions” or interest groups with concern when authoring segments of the Federalist Papers. The problem he envisioned was that eliminating them from the political scene was a threat to democratic principles, a cure worse than the disease.

Read More
1324 Words | 6 Pages

This paper examines both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Madison remark concerning ‘ factions ’ as the potential destructive social force to the society. To layout and examine, this paper will first outline and discuss on Rousseau’s understanding of factions in The Social Contract,and Madison’s discussion on factionalism in the Federalist Papers 10.But there are many component surrounded with their view’s on ‘factions’,so it is important to consider together. Firstly,I will consider the definition and the element surrounded with their view on factions. With regard to Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract,he believes that the society can only function to the extent that people have interest in common.

Read More
562 Words | 3 Pages

In the case of taxation, the more powerful of the two parties would have the opportunity to impose higher taxes on the minority, thus, saving themselves money. Madison firmly believed that the constitution had the ability to solve the problems created by factions. Madison envisioned a large republic that would make it difficult for corrupt candidates to get elected. Madison expressed this by stating, In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

Read More

More about The Role Of James Madison's Arguments In A Large Republic

Related Topics

Open Document