Democracies have a poor track record because the majority eventually tramples on the rights of the minority and often does not protect the public good. There are two great points of difference in favor of the Republic, the delegation of the government to representatives elected by the citizens and the greater number of citizens and area over which it may be applied. In a Republic it is favorable to have representatives elected with a greater number of citizens to protect against the election of unworthy candidates and to elect the people with the most attractive merit.
A large Republic with many representatives is necessary to guard against the cabals of a few but should not be so large as to create the confusion of the multitude. The argument is extended to favor the larger Republic formed by the union of the states as opposed to Republics for individual states which would not be of adequate size to thwart the action of factions. A pure Democracy cannot be an effective government if the governed occupy a large area with many citizens and diverse interests because the requirement for every citizen to assemble and vote on every issue would be impractical and unworkable.
It is mentioned without proof at this time that the Federal Constitution under consideration balances all of these issues with a Republican Government. This concludes the summary but if the reader will permit this humble summarizer I will briefly address the following issue: Is there something wrong with our constitution? Is our electorate operating unconstitutionally? Suppose tobacco farmers in North Carolina through thought or corruption or whatever gained sufficient support in their state to pass a law requiring all individuals over 13 years of age to smoke tobacco.
They then brought this desire to the Federal Republican Government. But here their interests would have minimal support from representatives from Maine, Texas, and everywhere else other than NC because the representatives from all other states considering the liberty of their constituents and the good of the rest of the country would never approve such a law at the national level.
Therefore a large Republic will defeat the will of a faction if it is detrimental to the whole because of the merit of the representatives, the founders thought. Party Unity at the Congressional level will defeat our form of representative government as it did with Obamacare. If representatives vote with the party interests over the interests of the people then a representative form of government will fail in the protection of the liberty of the people.
Almost every state is on at least one side, a frontier, and therefore finds incentive to join in the union for protection. Therefore, those states that lie farthest from the heart of the union will also be the most exposed to foreign danger and most compelled to maintain the union. Americans have never been inclined to shy away from newness in favor of antiquity and tradition. They should be proud of the experimentations made with the confederacy that is now upon them to improve and perpetuate.
If their original work contained imperfections, it is amazing how few there were. It is left to the current plan of union to fix them. The imperfections of the original plan of government led to the last stage of national humiliation, making it obvious that the United States was bordering on anarchy. The problems of the government include poor public credit, mounting debts, and an inability to repel foreign nations on our territory, to defend our right to free navigation of the Mississippi River, or to serve as ambassadors that are well received abroad.
It is terrible that such poverty of pride and possessions should befall a nation that is so rich in its abundance of land. The biggest overall problem with the original plan of government is that it has no authority to compel, only to recommend.
The Federalist Papers study guide contains a biography of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.
A short summary of The Founding Fathers's The Federalist Papers (). This free synopsis covers all the crucial plot points of The Federalist Papers ().
The Federalist Summary No Madison November 22, This paper is considered an important document in American history for it lays out how the writers of the constitution defined the form of government that would protect minority rights from organized and united factions that intended to pass legislation injurious to the liberty of the minority or detrimental to the good of the country. A summary of Federalist Essays No - No in The Founding Fathers's The Federalist Papers (). Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of The Federalist Papers () and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, .
Get free homework help on The Federalist: book summary, chapter summary and analysis and original text, quotes, essays, and character analysis courtesy of CliffsNotes. First published in , The Federalist is a collection of 85 newspaper articles, written by the mysterious Publius, that argued swift ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Federalist No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison as the tenth of The Federalist Papers: a series of essays initiated by Alexander Hamilton arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution.