You will read about the Federalist papers in the next couple of nights. These papers play a very important role in our history.
Take into consideration information you know about James Madison (his background, his political stance, etc.) when reading this document. Comment on his possible bias.
What is Publius' (aka James Madison) main argument? Choose ONE (1) of his main points and make specific comments about your opinions of this point.
Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Sept. 27
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution and he was a key player in the Constitutional Convention. He desperately wanted to create a Constitution and to get it ratified (he's a federalist). Because he is a proponent of getting the states to ratify the Constitution, his bias is going to be in the direction of supporting the Constitution and describing why it is superior to the current government. His main argument is against faction and he shows how a large republic can fight against the disease of tyrants and oppressive leaders. One of his main arguments is that by having a large republic, factions actually fight against each other. In a small republic, it is easier for a faction to grow and dominate, but in a larger republic there are so many different interest groups and diverse "parties" that it is very difficult for a faction to rise to power. This point really stands out because many people had always classified republics as a form of government not suitable for a large area-they were too impersonable and were simply too difficult to function on a large scale. But Madison takes that viewpoint and demonstrates that having a large republic is actually beneficial.
James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers to express his ideas on republics and to basically argue against factions. His bias is weighted towards a new Constitution and the benefits it would potentially bring to their society (especially since he was a federalist). Madison's main argument is that, depending on the size of a republic, it can greatly influence factions. I found it smart that he realized that by having a large republic factions would fight against each other. The fact that he noticed this defect shows that he looked at all aspects, even though he favors a republic. This document reminds me of Abigail Adam's letter to her husband just because of the fact that they were both sharing their personal opinion regarding the government. From reading this document, I have learned that Madison did his research about democracy and republics and overall, favored republics. What I still find confusing about this docuument is why Madison felt the need to write under a pseudonym.
Why did people write like that? Was it just to confuse innocent farmers or just to make future student’s brains literally twist into a knot?? It would be like us writing essays the way we write text messages or something. (Ha-good luck understanding that!) Madison’s words are so eloquent and strangely phrased, like most pieces of that time- “...be not less in the large than in the small...”-right, try turning that sentence in with an English essay. But, if you stare at the essay long enough and ignore all the flowery junk, his point is that the people need to support the Constitution and help change the government. Okay, fine, but his essay wasn’t exactly written so all the common people could pick it up in a glance and go “oh, okay, that makes sense, go federalists!” Or maybe I’m overreacting and all the people were well educated, classy and would never dream of say, rebelling, or sweet talking Britain, or even better, cheating each other with taxes...wait... Somehow, the states did pull together and make the Constitution, live happily ever after, blah blah. I have to question how Madison’s essays made that big of a change. Sure he got the word out, but were American really swayed that easily? Especially in the big states-what reason did they have to join in with people who can’t even stay at peace with each other? I’m confused how America was able to pull itself together and become a leading nation. Either all the states were a lot more cooperative that the book makes them seem, or us Americans must’ve had some of that heart leftover from the Revolution.
In the Federal Paper, James Madison, a very prominent nationalist, makes it clear that he was in favor of a large republic. He says that if a society with a small number of citizens was the only government they could not control factions becoming to powerful. He says that a republic varies greatly from a pure democracy, and a republican government would better suit the United States. Madison bias is definitely aimed toward the constitution. I agree with “Frenchie” when she said she found it interesting that he said factions would fight with each other in a bigger republic. I believe this makes a lot of since because in a successful government you need many opinions to come to the right conclusion.
Writer: James Madison.
Background: He was quite an ardent federalist; in fact, he was the main writer of the Virginia Plan. Obviously, he is more than a little biased, favoring federalism over all.
Main argument/idea/purpose: Madison wrote these documents to further convince the states to ratify the Constitution. He makes his case for federalism quite well. The focus of this document centers on the prevention of the predominance of factions in general. Madison lists the multiple ways in which federalism successfully prevents, or at least subdues, factions. One such argument is that, on the state level (federalism in microcosm), opposing interests and diverse opinions help prevent the unity of a faction, while on the national level, one "factionalized" state does not immediately impede the good of the entire union. Madison backs his argument by accounting for the size (and therefore myriad opinions) of a union as opposed to a state. I found this document to be somewhat redundant, and perhaps too dependent on the fact that a large republic will absolutely not give rise to a faction simply because of numbers.
Document reminds me of: Thomas Paine's Common Sense , perhaps? It also argues for a specific ideology. Cheers!
James Madison wrote this paper to express his federalist ideas. He wants to let others know how he feels about different types of governments. The main idea of this paper is to inform others, mainly the upper class (since they hold the power), that it is important to pass the Constitution. He points out that a strong federal government is best for putting down small factions of people.
One point he makes is that "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 practise with success the vicious arts." I totally agree with this. It is much better for a large number of people to vote on a political candidate. Having a large number of people vote for a candidate makes sure that the candidate is truely the best person for the job.
I find some of James Madison's word choices confusing.
Anyways, Publius (James Madison) scribed these great documents, today known as the Federalist Papers, back in the superb, the honorable, and the never forgetable year of 1788. The purpose of composing the tenth paper in particular was to distribute his thoughts and ideas about republics, along with sharing his arguments opposing factions. Obviously the document is biased in a way supporting the constitution and its dominance because of his federalist opinions. Also, he believes that factions can be solved with a largers republic rather than a small one. A faction--which is just a small group formed within the political world in this case--cannot come to overrule others if there are multiple factions amongst a republic. Small republics would have fewer factions, making it much easier for one to overpower another. Like Sophie and Daniel, I thought Madison was very wise for realizing that the factions among a large republic would continuously compete against themselves, never allowing one to be more powerful than another. This is good for a government because it provides many opinions and outlooks on various topics. And like Sophie, I think it is crazy that Madison used the name Publius to publish this document. But aparently he isn't too good at keeping secrets cuz everyone in the world nowadays knows he wrote it.
James Madison wrote the Federalists letters to express his Federalists ideas on a large republic and to try and get the states to ratify the Constitution. His point of view is (obiously) in favor of the Constitution and why a stronger and more centralized government will be better than the previous weaker one. His main argument is against faction and that in a larger republic,it is less likely for a faction to take over becuase since the republic is larger, there will be more factions. He says that in a smaller republic there will be less factions and the chance of them taking over becomes greater. I agree with Tyler, Sophie, and Daniel that James Madison was very wise for implying that in a larger republic factions will always compete against one another, preventing the rise and take over of just one. While many people thought a larger republic would just be less personal and cause conflict, Madison points out that a larger republic is actually better and more beneficial. Mrs. Stone, i do not like all the fluffy words or anything of that nature becuase i get soooooo confused and its a pain reading the article again, again, and then probably a third time.
oh yeah, what in the world was he thinking with the name Publius. Thats stupid i'm sure he could of come up with something much better than that seeing as how he was smart enough to write the Federalists Paper and all (maybe like Bob becuase there is always a bob out ther somewhere)
James Madison wrote The Federalist Paper to inform others why they should ratify the Constitution. Like Daniel said, his main argument is against factions and how a large republic can fight against tyrant leaders. His bias is that he deperatly wants the Constitution ratified. Like just about everybody else said, a main point that stuck out to me is that he explains that in a large republic factions will fight against each other and there will be oppinions and it will be hard for a group to dominate the country, but how in a small republic it would be easy for a group to gain control of the country. I agree with sophie in the fact that this kinda reminds me of the letters from abigail adams. I learned how important it is for a large republic to have many different oppinions in order to succeed and not and a tyrant ruler or group in power. All the flowery and wordy language confused me a bit.
To answer Sophie's question about why James Madison signed off with a pseudonym, I looked it up on Wikipedia and found that it was in honor of Publius's role in founding the Roman Republic. (Madison seemed really sure of himself, didn't he...)
He was a federalist and wrote the Federalist Papers to support his exaltation of the Constitution and the Republican system in contrast to a direct democracy. His biggest arguement seemed to be that a republic would prevent factionalism from spreading rampantly across the country, as would happen in a democracy. Instead, the passionate views of the people would be translated through many representatives, who would filter them to fit the best interests of the nation as a whole. A point of his that I find debatable is the one he makes contending that the representative body is a check against corruption leading to the power of one party above the rest. When put into the context of the age the papers were written in, the statement makes sense. But looking at the representation of various parties today, we see almost no representation of any party besides democrats and republicans. As each party gains a hand over the other election after election, it is apparent that corruption is not quite as checked as it was originally intended.
This document was written by James Madison, trying to convince people that the Constitution was the best step forward for the United States, mainly by extolling the powers of a centralized republic. This is fairly similar to our last blog from George Washington, which also supported a strong federal republic. Madison sees little virtue in any republic that has either too much or too little representation, saying they would lead to either a government totally unaware of the peoples' needs or one that is too factional and has no ability to act on a national scale. He believed the new government would be a perfect mix of the two with the new Constitution. This has, as Victoria said, lead to a two-party system that seems fairly inescapable at this point, forcing people to choose on almost every level from two people, both of which are centrist, differ on a handful of issues, and the debate between the two often devolves into a rather insignificant issue that is framed to please the lowest common denominator of the public's wishes. The public does not seem to be given a lot of choice, but voting for an independent effectively throws your vote away and has in the past actually hurt their preferred big party candidate. But that's likely how it's going to stay.
Blair's post:
James Madison wrote the Federalists letters because he wanted to give his "two sense" about his beliefs. His point of view is coming from the Federalists beliefs. He wants a strong, centralized goverment and strongly wants a Constitution. Madison's
main argument is against faction. He believes that in a larger republic, it is less likely for a faction to take over. (more people, more factions and more conflict)
he believes that in a smaller republic there will be less factions and the chance of them taking over becomes greater. (less people, more power) I agree with Sophie and Donna Lynn and the long list of other people that believe this too, I like that James Madison realized that a large republic would be better. He went againist what everybody else thought. I swear Mrs. Stone I read the letter like a million times until it sunk in. This article reminds me of the letter Abagail Adams wrote to John Adams. She express her opinion and so does James Madison. And didn't James Madison help write or was in charge of the Virginia Plan?
James Madison wrote this document to explain the reason the government was going to be a republic not a democracy but more importantly he is trying to convince the states to ratify the new Constitution. He first clarified the differences between a true democracy and a republic. He seems to be explaing why our government was going to be a republic not a democracy. One advantage he said a republic had over a democracy was that there would be more political groups they would be too busy fighting each other for power and not one particular group would have authority for too long. If you had a democracy then whoever had the majority ruled and anyone who attempted to block their path would be swept away.
James Madison wrote the Federalist Paper of 1788 and was obviously a federalist himself and he is definatly against the idea of having a small republic containing small citizens because it creates the opportunity for too much power to get into one's hands. The main reason for writing this is more or less to get the pros and cons out for a large republic and a small republic, leaning more towards having a larger republic. He defends the idea of a large republic for more than one reason; first off with a large republic it is a sort of way to have checks and balances on power so that one faction won't become too powerful and the government can't get too much power in their hands. The point of view is obviously coming from a strong federalist's ideas.
James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers to express his ideas on Federalism persuade the states to ratify the Constitution. The point of view is a federalists and man in power wanting to unify a nation. His bias is definately that he is for the Constitution. Madison's main point in the paper is that there should not be factions of states instead we should be one large diverse region. He writes that if we are all seperate then the chance of one eventually taking over increases. I agree with Daniel that republics were usually thought of as not suitable for a large area because it would be impersonal and too difficult to run. In the Constitution this is turned around and made so the states have power also. The way this was wrote was SOO confusing Mrs. Stone!
James Madison being a Princeton graduate, having studied Government and History, knows how to persuade an audience. He obviously wants to change his audience’s opinion to be in favor of the constitution and a stronger central government. He presents his argument by comparing a democracy to a republic. He outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each. He talks about how representation can affect political view of the nation. He thinks that the public should have a voice through their representation. This point is very valid and the people’s opinions should be well represented by their representation. That is what a democracy must be successful in because that what it is centered around.
This Federalist paper, written by James Madison, expresses his want for a Constitutional government. He, being a nationalist, has a bias toward this constitution. He wants nothing more but this and refuses to see it any other way. Instead, he's trying to persuade the Antifederalists to "jump the fence" and join their side. Obviously, his point of view is that of a Federalist and very much supports the Constitution and all that goes along with it. This document is unlike any others that I have read, but I'm sure it is very much like the other 85 essays in The Federalist Papers. I agree with Sophie when she said that Madison knew what he was talking about when it came to democracy and republics. He demonstrates his knowledge of both of these very well throughout the entire piece. As usual, and like Michael, some of his word choice was a bit confusing to me.
Madison's bias is pretty obvious, since this particular document is called the Federalist Paper #10, meaning he is indeed a federalist, and therefore very much in favor of the Constitution. His primary point seems to be that the Constitution is absolutely necessary in order to preserve the union and prevent fragmentation and unrest among the various, and at this point, fairly independent from each other, states. One of his is to take the goldilocks approach to the number of representatives. Not too few, not too many. He really seems concerned for balance, and feels that the Constitution would provide the means to achieve that particular end.
This is Mackenzie Wilder. The Federalist Paper was written by James Madison under the pen name Publius. The main idea of this document is for Madison to convince the antifederalist that the Constitution is a good thing and so was a centralized government sharing power with the state government. James Madison also wanted to gain the support of Virginia and New York so they would ratify the Constitution and he also wanted to stress to the antifederalists that the constitution would indeed protect their rights. James Madison also states all the reasons for being a federalist and the benefits. I chose the same point that Clemsonguy55 that 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." I do agree that it is better more a large amount of people to elect a representative. This helps the whole community to be expressed through their votes and representatives. I TOTALLY agree with Elizabeth Batson (aka Sarah) that why in the world can’t James Madison just talk plain and simple. This document reminds me of Washington’s letter because he is trying to make a point just like James Madison was.
James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers to try to change antifederalist's opinions. He used his personal biased opinion to show that a new Constitution would be very beneficial to America. Madison's main argument is that a large republic can fight tyrants and oppressive leaders. Madison believed that the smaller a public, the easier tyrants can dominate. Madison also shows the positive side of being a Federalist. A large number of people to vote for certain ideas is better than a small group because more opinions are expressed. James Madison really likes balance, and shows that with a large republic the system of checks and balances will be greater so no one faction could obtain more power than the others. Madison was very knowledgeable of republics and democracy.
James Madison wrote the Federalist papers to convince people to support the constition. He was a Federalist, so he was more bias to the constition. One of his main points is that each representative will be chosen by a bigger number of citizens in a larger republic than in a small one. He wants the more qualified people out of the bigger states to have more say so than those unqualified for the job. That way unworthy candidates dont get overwhelmed with too much power.
NICK FOISTER
Mrs. Stone that one above is mine i fogot to write my name on it Sorry
As Daniel said, James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution and his writing this paper in conjunction with the other papers affected the decisions of many of the antifederalist states decision to vote for the ratification of the constitution. One of Madison's main arguments was that political factions should not be able to ultimately decide the goverment's decisions. Madison feels that if the government's power is mainly on the national level then the chances of political factions affecting the govenment's decisions is limited.
James Madison was a very important person in createing the Constitution and founding a solid government. Many people looked up to him in his effort to create a Constitution. In the "Federalist Paper" he will be biased towards accepting and promoting the Constituion. His Federalists Papers were written to show federalists ideas about government and to promote the ratification of the Constitution. James Madison wanted to create a large republic in order to cut down on powerful factions. He promoted his views on the new government by saying that the many people would be represented by representatives within the states and that the centralized government would be more efficient and beneficial. I feel like James Madison knew what he was talking about and was a trustworthy resource since he was a founder and supporter of the federalism and the new Constitution. This is a very early example of propaganda
James Madison wrote this to others to try to get get them to accept the Constitution. It obviously has a Federalist twang to it and he pretty much sums up that a big republic would be better for the country. He talks about how a republic is by far the best option because of it's strong points. Madison's paper also talks about how a republic could put down powerful factions if need be. Madison also says that the main reason for a large republic is because in a small republic a group has a much better chance of taking over. I agree with Najeebe about how you need many opinions to come to the right conclusion in government. I had a lot of problems understanding this document. I had to read each sentence several times to partially understand it. Why did people back then have to right like that?
Madison,being a member of the national elite, supported the Constitution and thus was a Federalist. Claiming such statements as "the suffrages of people being more free, will be more likely to centre on men who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established characters." This is such a explicit attack on the Antifederalists, almost saying 'I get to decide the rights of the government because I'm smarter than you.' Therefore his obvious bias is of a wealthy, high-class government official in favor of the Constitution.
In Federalist Paper #10, he emphasizes the benefits of the Constitution to the states. This document is blatant propaganda because Madison writes as if he's trying to convince Antifederalists, or anyone who didn't support the Constitution for that matter, that it was a well-composed document and would ameliorate the troubles facing America. He did a pretty good job too, because he says "the federal constitution forms a happy combination in this respect, the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the state legislatures;" and if I hadn't believed in the Constitution, that statement would have changed my mind.
One point Madison tends to stick with is the idea concerning the equality of representation between small and large states. It was clever of him to dwell on this subject because it eased the fears of small states who felt the large states would compose the majority of the government. Again, very clever of Madison to address both sides of the issue to convince Americans the Constitution was a proper representation of "republican government."
hey mrs. stone, its jake from 4th period
well to answer your first question yes I can see how Publius (James Madison) could be bias. He was from the city, wealthy, and well educated. The way he wrote this article would be hard for the average person of that time to even understand. Madison says that a larger central government would be better because their would be many different people and places under one government.
The writer of the Federalist Papers is James Madison. Madison was a very deticated federalist, and he very much saw a need in the creation of a new Constitution. Considering the fact that Madison was a dedicated federalist, the bias of these letters, obviously, is on the side of federalism. The main idea of this document is to convince all of the states to ratify the constitution. Through this letter, Madison clearly defines how federalism helps to prevent factions. Madison's main argument is that a having a large republic would cause factions to argue and fight against each other. Like Daniel said, in a small republic, it is much easier for a particular faction to dominate and rise to power. Something that stood out to me was that Madison was able to look at a large repulic and see the negatives of it, despite the fact that he was completely in favor of it. Like Sophie and Tyler, I also find it confusing as to why james Madison published these papers under the anme of Publius.
Hey its Liz
First off i just have to say Madison sure did know a whole lot about democracy and the republic.
James Madison wrote this Federalist Paper because he was concerned how the government was being run. In his opinon, Madison thought that the best type of government was one that was large. He says a small government wouldn't work because not everone can express their opinion. But a large government allows everyone to have a voice. Madison says that a large republic can also help in keeping the government in checks and balances. Obviously he is bias seeing as he's all for ferderalism and he is a federalist himself.
because james madison was one of the main designers of the constitution, he wished it to be ratified. he argues that a goverment based over a large area is better than one which covers only a small area. he thinks this because he feels in a large republic there would be to many opposing options to form a strong unified party that could become tyrannical. while this is an unusual idea concerning republics it does seem logical and such.
-Josh Hammond
James Madison is trying to persuade the Anti-Federalist states that federalism is great and to ratify the Constitution. He talks a lot about how in a large republic that there would not be a single distinct majority but many opinions that would be debated and the republic would not be overrun with a tyrannical government. He changes his reader's opinions that this wouldnt work in a large republic. I disagree with Donna that Publius is stupid because it has a nice ring to it.
James madison wrote this to convince the antifederalists to accept the constitution. He is a federalist so he obviously supports the constitution. He was stating why a large republic was aa good thing. He states that a strong government would put down the factions.
This is Beth Galloway
A strong beleiver in federalism, James Madison, now known as the father of the constitution was all for getting it ratified. He wants to let the people know why its such a good idea that this particular document be ratified. One of his main arugement is that a republic would be a better choice for the government that they are seeking as the united states of America. Most of the people are worried that with a strong central government that they will have to worry about tyranny but one of the good things about a republic is it's almost nearly impossible to end up with a tyrannic government because the people still have most of the control. One of Madison's main points is that with a republic it will be harder to pick unworthy representatives because there are so many voters, which makes it harder for those types to get elected.
James Madison, a Federalist, wrote this as pro-constitution propaganda. His main point in this particular document is to weigh the pros and cons of republic size, and factions. He says that a large republic will be most effective because due to the large size it will be less susceptible to fall due to factions. This really would help sway those who weren't quite sure about the constitution because he put said that a large republic and not letting factions take control would lead to an anti-oppressive government.
I am still confused at why in the world they had to write all confusing as bejesus.
And, Interesting point about the Publius stuff, Victoria. But, like Donna Lynn said, I could think of a jillion more interesting names than that, no matter how pompous his pseudonym choice is.
*this is Hannah Mauldin
James Madison is the writer of the Federalist Papers. He wrote the Federalist Papers in order to get the Constitution ratified. The theme of this reading is in favor of the Constitution because come on, he is James Madison. His ideas about a large central goverment are great. The point Madison talks about that stood out the most to me is his point about a larger republic having so many different groups that a faction's rise would be difficult. The people get what they want but also can feel safe. It helps to keep a balance in the goverment. All the weird words got my lost a few times but i eventually figured it out. After reading this document, I have learned how interested Madison was in the common good of the people. Right on Madison, right on.
James Madison, as an obvious Federalist, wants to use this federalist paper #10 in order to convince Antifederalists that ratifying the Constitution would prevent rule by faction. Of course, through this "Federalist Propaganda", there is no reason to doubt that Madison's points are biased that having a Constitution would be the best choice for the states because he is wanting to persuade them to accept it.
This article reminds me of the Objections to the Constitution by George Mason, in complete and total opposite ways. George Mason stated that the Constitution would be a bad thing because individual rights would not be protected, while Madison is stating that the Constitution will be a good thing by protecting the people against faction rule.
One of his main points is that with a larger republic, more citizens will vote, causing a more worthy and fit candidate to take a head position. I somewhat think that anyone can be decieving, and a supposedly "fit" candidate could not be truly "fit" at all but let into the position.
shazam.
by the way i know you are loving this great timing that i've got with posting my blog at 11:59. im just good like that.
shazam.
once again.
nitey nite peeps.
The main idea of the reading is that a republic of a certain size, with a good proportion of delegates, is the best government for decrease the potential power of factions. The writer of the document was James Madison, a.k.a. Publius, who strongly supported the Constitution and wanted, through the Federalist Papers, to convince the states who had not yet ratified the Constitution to do so. The document is linked to other documents we've read in this period by the difficult-to-understand language. The wording of these documents, especially when read relatively late at night, is really beginning to kick my butt. An important detail that I have learned from the reading was that Madison had put a lot of genuine thought into his support of the Constitution. The wording still confuses me some, but the ideas themselves do not. I actually kind of like this document and how in depth he gets with explaining certain subtle differences between various things, even if again, the way he explains this differences can be kind of confusing at times.
Publius' main argument seems to be that a large republic is best. One reason he gives for this is that "each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens," which I think would make it more difficult for an incompetent or overzealous representative to be elected by exerting influence on a small group of people.
Kayla's use of the word "bejesus" made me laugh.
James Madison is a true federalist who strongly supports the constitution. Because of his strong influence by the federalists and supporting the constitution he is obviously bias toward constitutionalized ideas which are commonly known throughout federalist ideaology. A bigger republic or government is what Madison is shooting for because as a federalist he doesn't want to see America change into a government ruled by some sort of tyrant or monarch.
This is a comment by Warren Johnson (sorry its late)
The Federalist papers were written by James Madison to pursuade the ratification of the Constitution. His main argument was the establishment of a strong central government that can protect itself and its people. Madison, being a federalist, is biased towards ratifying the constitution because it supports this strong government
Hey Mrs. Stone this is Brian sorry this was super late.
James Madison wrote The Federalist Paper to inform others why they should ratify the Constitution. Like Daniel said, his main argument is against factions and how a large republic can fight against tyrant leaders. His bias is that he deperatly wants the Constitution ratified. Like just about everybody else said, a main point that stuck out to me is that he explains that in a large republic factions will fight against each other and there will be oppinions and it will be hard for a group to dominate the country, but how in a small republic it would be easy for a group to gain control of the country. I agree with sophie in the fact that this kinda reminds me of the letters from abigail adams. I learned how important it is for a large republic to have many different oppinions in order to succeed and not and a tyrant ruler or group in power. All the flowery and wordy language confused me a bit.
CRAZY LATE!!!!
James Madison is a Federalist and greatly wants the constititution to be ratified, thus his bias. He writes this paper to pursuade readers to be in favor of a large republic, which will keep everything fair and not let the government be run by a small group of people, or confused by a large group. I really liked this idea because it makes perfect sense. When a few people are put in charge, the people won't have much of a say in what goes on. On the other hand, if too many people are in government, nothing will get done.
I thought that the Federalist papers were really confusing and I almost gave up reading it. I think what Madison is trying to get across is that governments need to be run in a specific way. There can't be too many people because everything would be chaotic and nothing would get done, but not enough people doesn't allow the citizens to have a fair say. Since Madison was a Federalist, it makes sense that he dislikes factions because they take away from the importance of the executive branch of the government.
Sorry, that was ridiculously late, my bad.
Post a Comment