Sample Essay On Federalist Essay Number 10 By James Madison

James Madison (1751-1836) was a member of the Philadelphia convention and one of the authors of "The Federalist". This politician deserves more than anyone the honorary title of "Father of the American Constitution." He had made a significant contribution to the development of republican government ideas in a US as well as the theory of equilibrium of separate powers, the concept of fractions and others. It is because of his thorough philosophical, political and legal approach "Federalist" from the detailed comments of the Constitution has become a masterful analysis of the fundamental principles of state power and eventually a source of constitutional law to the Supreme Court of the United States and required reading for all researchers of American constitutional experience.
In Madison’s essay Federalist No 10 passions are the most important motives of human activity. They perform important and fundamental function in the field of political relations. Passion correlates with the need and interest. The need is the ratio between the agent, the subject (the body, social group, man) and the conditions of human existence. Interest is the ratio between the subjects about the conditions of existence. In distinguishing both must be borne in mind that unlike the needs and interests passions are not in the nature of relationships that they express (and in fact, and in either case they are needed, objective, activities may be reflected in the mind), but in the subjects, sides, between which relations are established. In a society passions always act on different levels of generality, expressing the specifics of relationships and life orientation of social groups, strata, professions, classes, ethnic entities. Some of these passions express the fundamental trends of social existence of classes, nations and society as a whole. Its originality lies in the fact that passions are manifestation of power relations, mediating the interaction of public and private interests by means of the state, society and their interests.
The next important definition in Madison’s essay is fraction. It is worth mentioning that Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hume, Adams, and many other prominent researchers the world of politics also wrote about fractions. Madison continued this tradition and introduced some innovations in the interpretation of the concept of fractions. According to the determination he had made in his "Federalist," the word "fraction" meant a group of citizens united and actionable with single passion, interest or opinion, which is, however, hostile or shy to the rights of other citizens and aggregate interests of society. According to the text, faction is “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole” (1787).
The source of factions happens to lie within the nature of man and different degrees of his activity, accordingly to the different circumstances of civil society. The essay refer to factions as causing "mischief" because of this particular human nature in connection between man’s reasoning and self-love, opinions and passions, which always have a reciprocal influence on each other. That is why the “majority” faction is dangerous because neither their moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.
Madison wrote that the factions should be eliminated by government correcting the effects of the harm that such a majority or a minority causes. But to deal with that situation is possible in two ways: “by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence or by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests” (1787). In another words, one suggests to eliminate the causes of occurrence fraction; the other to destroy the regulation of the consequences of its existence. Since the underlying causes of factionalism inherent in human nature and related to the varied wealth, its causes cannot be eliminated, we can only alleviate the consequences of occurrence of the faction, taking them under control. People with factional tendencies, with parochial prejudices may intrigue bribery or any other way to get votes in a representative system of the country, and then betray the interests of the people. In societies relatively small fractional differences can be reduced to a minimum two - majority and minority. In large republics society forms one nation, but divided into a huge range of fractions.
Madison tried to convince that the large and diverse republic was better at controlling factions compared to a democracy. He wrote “the advantage consists in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice” (1787). “The greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest”. Madison did favor a Federal system with many states and a strong national government to control factions.
Moreover, Founding father stressed that the republic is better than a democracy for the early United States. 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.
However, the idea that a confederal system in comparison to a federal system won’t be better at controlling factions is absolutely unquestionable in Madison’s reasoning. The main differences between the two concepts are sovereignty and territorial units. Accordingly, to leave the federation is practically impossible, the attempt to equate to sedition and in practice this happens very rarely. Termination of Confederation is a logical step completion of its activities. Federation is considered as sustainable public education, age of individual representatives calculated for centuries. Confederation breaks after its creation when all goals are reached, or due to internal contradictions.
It is interesting to follow in the essay the line about republic versus democracy for the sake of state and citizens. Thus, the republic is better than a direct democracy at controlling political conflict between citizens. According to Madison, to expand the geographic and human basis is essential for the republic. And that has taken its place at the national government, the creation of which is proposed in the Constitution. He wrote "as a great country, a representative will be elected by a large number of citizens than in small, unworthy candidates will be difficult to apply successfully in practice malicious cunning, which is too often used in elections. The influence of factional leaders can fan the flames of passion in the states they represent, but these leaders will not be able to turn it into a great fire, which would cover all the other states" (1787). Here he strongly recommended a principle of pluralism, which supports diversity in itself as evidence of protean manifestations of personality and its freedom, and, more importantly, a variety which has the aim to provide a positive impact in the process of neutralizing the opposing passions and interests. Just as the myriad of religious beliefs in the United States makes it virtually impossible approval of any one dominant church, a variety of states with their many distinctive areas and specific interests, essentially eliminates the possibility of the victory of inflammatory and potentially oppressive faction or party in the entire country. A support to this argument can be found in evolution of major US political parties for activities, which have always been characterized by a tendency to manifestations of moderation and rejection of ideological methods, as each of them has a wide variety of group and economic interests.
As stated by Aristotle, a large state with a large number of citizens "middle class" is more stable and viable, because it is caused by moderate incomes main class society and its tendency to support a moderate form of government. Under this option, the political and legal communication between citizens has more freedom of factions (groups, cliques) rich or poor citizens. Madison paid great attention to the role and importance of social differences in society and state. They arise from differences in abilities and interests, especially economic interests, which, according to Madison, constitute the most common and the most durable on the effects of the source of the differences and conflicts. He believes the small size of the republic the main factor leading to rapid deterioration or destruction of the republican form of government during the civil war.
So regarding Madison’s views on federal system, the one we have today is good enough at controlling factions, or do certain factions (groups) have more political influence (power) than others. There is a soft tyranny of the majority in our current system. Madison’s most concerned about the need to "hack and bring under control the rampant factional struggle", by which he meant political parties and which saw the greatest danger to people's power.
Furthermore, the essay’s depiction of human nature is quite fair and correlates with modern understanding. Passions and interests that endanger the rights of others may be religious or political in nature or that happens most often be subordinated to economic goals. The watershed of the factional struggle can take place between the rich and the poor, or the creditors and debtors, or it can lead for the possession of a particular property. I totally agree with Madison’s sayings that "circles of landowners and producers, trade and financial circles, as well as smaller groups united by common interests, appear in civilized countries because of the need and are divided into different classes, driven by different sentiments and views” (1787). So the regulation of the activities of these numerous and diverse community guided by conflicting interests, is the main task of modern legislative activity.
The honest, reasonable and free people can actually overcome the competing demands or termination resulting from the political quarrels. Since it is impossible to ban passion or self-interest, the corresponding form of public authorities should be able to prevent that any faction, whether majority or minority faction, to impose its will to the detriment of the common good. One of the remedies for this or that faction commands. As Madison argued, it is the republican (or representative) form of government with a tendency to beautification and expansion of public opinion and to this end passes it through the medium of one or another selected group of citizens.
Madison’s reflection on the ideological traditions, natural law and the social contract, philosophical comments on the draft laws on human rights and the constitutional branches of government regulation have been preserved through centuries, as well as reflections on the legacy of the English Whigs, Scottish empiricist philosophers and redefining the experience of the ancient republics. I admire the fact that Madison foresaw the existence of two types of politicians: mediocre and great. Mediocre politicians and their name is legion, mostly guided by narrow self-interest, on behalf of either the rich or the poor. Hence it can be expected that their political views lean in favor of the economic interests of one class or another. In contrast, the great political figures, even if they are not free from selfishness, not bind itself to the end neither with rich nor poor.

References

Madison, James (1787). FEDERALIST No. 10. The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. New York Packet. Retrieved from http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm