"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, 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, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, 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, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:"
While we generally consider the United States to be a democracy, in reality, the US is not a democracy, but rather, a republic. Here, Madison outlines the differences between a democracy and a republic, highlighting why the United States would be more functional as a republic. Madison writes that in a democracy, the desires of the people are expressed with no filter, which leads to chaos and disorganization. However, in a republic, the ideas are filtered through an elected body who has been chosen to best represent the goals of the nation. These people, which are regarded as wiser than the general population, know what is best for the country and can act in its best interest. He later writes that, as long as there are enough representatives to guard against a few people acting in their own personal interests instead of that of the country, a republic is the best way to communicate the ideas of the nation in an orderly fashion.
"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."
Additionally, Madison discusses the benefits of a federal government over stronger State governments. He argues that a particularly radical leader or religious sect might create enough influence in an area to win in a state. However, having a strong federal government means that this "factitious leader" wouldn't be able to gain enough power to corrupt the entire country. Therefore, having a strong federal government that includes all of the states is the best option because it prevents any one party from gaining too much power.
Federalist Essay 51
"In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others."
One major principle of American government is the separation of powers. Madison argues that, by separating the branches of government, each branch checks the others so that one does not overpower the others. He writes of the importance of assuring that these branches are separate and not influenced by one another, for corruption by another branch eliminates the benefits of having separation of powers altogether.
"There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people."
While Madison emphasizes the need for a strong federal government in Federalist Essay No. 10, he simultaneously argues the necessity of state governments. According to Madison, having strong federal and state governments allows for a balance of power that prevents either one from taking more power than it should. He uses the ideas of John Locke to argue that a person gives up their rights when they are protected by a government. However, he uses this to argue that a government should protect the natural rights of the people, and the best way to do this is through the combination of state and federal government.
Works Cited:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment