The Couger Report

This is a continuation of my series 15 Things You Must Read Before Voting.

FEDERALIST 10

ABOUT

The Federalist is a collection of 85 editorials written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. The men used the pseudonym Publius, an allusion to Roman Consul Publius Valerius Publicola who was a major reformer and “man of the people.” The Federalist Papers all advocated the ratification of the current United States Constitution. The Federalist is especially important today because it is a primary source related to the intended operation of the Federal Government and the mindset of the Founding Fathers. According to professors George W. Carey and James McClellan , “It is not too much to say that a reading of The Federalist is indispensable to an understanding of the American Constitution.”

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The Federalist was an attempt to gain support for the ratification of the Constitution. Publius authored these essays, most of which were published in New York newspapers, to gather support for a federal system. The Ratification debate occurred a mere four years after the Treaty of Paris, a moment when most Americans believed that America’s Independence symbolized a split with strong centralized Government. With the goal to create “a more perfect union,” the Founders had to invent a Government that would be strong enough to ensure order, yet limited enough to not infringe on “Natural Rights.”

MY ANALYSIS

The core argument Publius makes in Federalist 10 is that the greatest advantage of a republican federalist system is “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Prior to this editorial, many Americans believed that people “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens…” may plunder others in a system based on popular sovereignty.

On the subject concerning control of faction, Publius concludes that there are two methods: removing the causes and removing the effects.

There are two ways for a government to eliminate the causes of faction: “by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence” or “giving every citizen the opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Option 1 is a blatant contradiction of the principles laid out in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (and the foundation of the revolutionary war, self-government and every political creed ever professed by any Founding Father). Clearly Option 1 was not an “option” at all. The latter option, to give every citizen the same interest, is impractical (not to mention dehumanizing and immoral). Removing the causes of faction was not an option for the Founders, as Publius pointed out “The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise.”

While Publius is taking on the causes of faction, he makes a very important point. “The diversity in faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.” Similar to Jefferson yesterday, Publius points out that the first object of government is to ensure its subjects are free. Publius goes on to mention that “from the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of society into different interests and parties.” Did the father of the Constitution support a free-market system? Oh yeah. Does capitalism create faction? “…the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property.”

Since eliminating the causes of faction is not an answer, removing the effects of faction must be. There are two ways to do this: institute a democratic system or a republican system. On democracy, Publius asserts that “a pure democracy, by which I mean, a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” Publius flat out states that democracy is not the solution because of “the tyranny of the majority.”

That leaves us with one final option: a republican system. “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure of which we are seeking.” Publius claims that although a “democracy” can only function (albeit poorly) with a small number of people, a system of representation can operate in a large country. By “refin[ing] and enlarg[ing] 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…” There are two ways an extended republic is better: more people to keep an eye on the politicians and more people to dilute sectional/regional factions and passions. The bigger the better.

So, was he correct?

On Monday join me for Federalist 84.

Keep in mind: Bastiat’s The Law is the longest reading we have. You may want to start on it this weekend.

Go Home