The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 10.

This paper is titled THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION (CONT'D).

This paper was written by James Madison.

by Alexander Hamilton

We still need to discuss Federalist 9 - folks it is only a couple of pages. But also at the same time we need to move on to one of the most important Federalist Papers - Number 10:

This is the reading assignment for this week (starting May 7th):

FEDERALIST No. 10

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection CONT'D)
December 21 - December 27 (page 68)

(Alexander Hamilton)

http://federali.st/10

Remember each week's assignment may take you 10 minutes tops. And each paper is about 2 pages in length; so it is easy to catch up at your leisure. Reading these papers really helps put our government in perspective (US).

Also, we are able to discuss the current assignment or any of the previous week's assignments so you can always catch up, ask questions and/or participate and comment at any time.

Federalist 10 will also begin May 7th.

The next concept discussed in Spark Notes was the following:

"A republican form of government provides the closest remedy for factions without eliminating liberty altogether.

A faction is defined as any number of citizens that are inspired by some common passions to act adversely towards the rights of other citizens.

The republican form of government works to prevent factions because a higher number of representatives guard against the attempts of the few, and because the extended sphere of the republic makes it less probably that a faction will become a majority of the whole."

OK what do they mean by "republican"? We know they are not talking about the political party.

This reference obviously refers to our own constitution.

Article Four: Section Four states:

Section 4 - Republican government

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

I guess we have to go back and examine the word "republic". What does it mean?

Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW

In the context of the United States and our constitution - both definitions apply.

The clause in the constitution Article Four/Section Four is called the Guarantee Clause. There is nothing in the constitution which gives us a clear cut definition of what the founding fathers meant.

The Federalist Papers, however, does give us an idea what the founding fathers meant.

James Madison in Federalist Paper 10 (which we need to discuss in depth) stated: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." So the founding fathers were not equating a republican form of government as a democracy. They hated democracies and loved a republican form of government.

Wikipedia discusses the following:

"A crisis in 1840s Rhode Island, the Dorr Rebellion, forced the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of this clause. At the time, the state constitution was the old royal charter established in the 17th century, under which most free white males in the state were disenfranchised; an attempt to hold a popular convention to write a new constitution was declared insurrection by the charter government, and the convention leaders were arrested. One of them brought suit in federal courts, arguing that Rhode Island's government was not "republican" in character, and that his arrest (along with all of the government's other acts) were invalid. In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Court rejected the notion that the "republican-ness" of states lay within the purview of judicial review, holding that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character.” In effect, it held the clause to be non-justiciable.

What does Justiciability mean or non-justiciable?

Here is a wikipedia article which explains it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justicia...

Wikipedia also stated the following regarding Article Four/Section Four of the Constitution:

"The ruling did leave it open to Congress to establish guidelines for the republican nature of state governments, however, which became an important part of the initial phases of Reconstruction after the American Civil War.

The Radical Republican-led Congress viewed this clause as a tool to shape the governments of the reconquered southern states: they argued that any state that did not offer equality before the law and suffrage for former slaves could not be considered truly "republican," and thus could be denied Congressional representation.

With the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the power of the federal government to safeguard these rights was explicitly added to the Constitution, and this interpretation of Section Four became moot.

Indeed, when the Supreme Court revisited some of the territory covered by Luther v. Borden in cases like Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause was the basis of its changed decisions.

The establishment of a monarchy, even a constitutional one, by any state appears to be barred by Section 4.

The guarantee of a republican government has been asserted by many advocates to prohibit the use of direct democracy procedures in the states.

The use of the initiative, referendum, and recall are all tools of "direct democracy," that allow the electorate to exercise legislative power independently from their republican representatives.

The Supreme Court faced a challenge to the use of statewide initiatives in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912). In that case, the Court held that challenges to a state's republican character are non-justiciable political questions, and that the decision of whether a state is "republican" in conformance with the guarantee clause may be decided only by Congress, and the Court would not get involved.

This stance remains true today, and each time Congress accepts representatives to the House and Senate, it is implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy and republican nature of the state from which the representatives were elected."

I am not so sure about Spark Notes interpretation of factions; because I think that factionalism is probably doing a lot of damage to our country and is not what somebody like Madison had in mind.

I think there are many factions in this country which actively try to suppress with their own tactics and they more than likely act adversely against the rights of other citizens.

I think that there are different groups in various political parties that are doing just that. I guess it still remains improbable that a faction will gain a majority; but I cannot say that it is impossible.

Are there any instances that you can think of where a faction has actually swayed the majority and become a majority of the whole?

Also, do you think that we have strayed towards becoming more like a democracy versus a republic...something that a founder like James Madison would abhor?

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_...

http://www.sparknotes.com/

Factions have been extant in the human circumstance since the days of Adam and Eve. They are a constant and attendant pitfall in all societies. The ones that are displaying themselves today in American society are quite serious; hopefully, they will be quelled before they lead to situations like those events of 1860-1. Madison was quite perceptive in delineating the need to address and understand factions in society. Even today, we must understand these forces in America and if this nation survives this challange it will face ones as great in the future.

The Christian right coupled with the emerging independent military of the Blackwater pose the profile of a faction similiar to the National Socialist and SA of Germany in the late 20's early 30's.

Many other groups/factions are presently emerging in today's society; as we are becoming more polarized.

Bentley, you ask "Are there any instances that you can think of where a faction has actually swayed the majority and become a majority of the whole" In America, the civil rights movement is a recent a good example, in the past the Nazi take over in Germany is another.

Bentley.......your referal to straying too close to democracy and away from a republican form; I think is percipitated by the information age where one person can talk to everyone at once.....internet......today's media.

Two very solid examples Harry.

Yes, you make a good point about the internet and today's media. But is all of this noise drowning out the opportunity to really make up one's own mind according to his or her conscience without the constant proliferation of the airways instructing our citizens on how to think and/or what to believe. Do you think that today our citizens' limited study of the classics and of history or civics is indicative of a society that has limited patience and doesn't want to be bothered with community, global issues, etc unless it affects them personally?

I also worry about the following aspects of a democracy where
the chief characteristic and distinguishing feature is: Rule by an Omnipotent Majority (a group who thinks they are).

In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

A republic is different and that is the form promoted by our founding fathers:

In 55 which we have not gotten to as yet but here is a little foreshadowing (smile), Madison stated:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

I worry that the better qualities of our country's human nature has not been showing much lately. What do you think?

Bentley wrote: "In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man."

Hamilton and Madison argued that federalism was one way to avoid majority tyranny.

In their discussion of the "extended republic," they believed that, in a large country like the United States, there would be so many different majorities such that none could hope to overwhelm all the others. Local minorities could always appeal to those majorities in other states to come to their rescue. At a minimum, oppressed minorities could "vote with their feet" and move to a different state.

These insights fueled much of the civil rights movement, where "out of state" lawyers and political leaders came to the assistance of poor people of color who were mistreated by local white majorities in the American south and southwest. Additionally, southern share-croppers began a migration to the north and mid-west in the 20th century in search of better jobs, housing, and education for their children.

The insight also deeply affected American political scientists like Bob Dahl, who helped establish "pluralism" as the dominant explanation for American politics.

by Robert A. Dahl

Thank you Vheissu for the above.

As I read further; I see how we must continually guard our system against the onslaught of not only factions; yet technologies. I just finished reading #14, and in the second paragraph Madison nixes a pure democracy due to the size of America.

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region. ¶

This statement no longer holds true due to the state of today's communication systems. A pure democracy using cell phones etc. could be easily implemented. This would be quite dangerous!!!

Again, I add to my vocabulary. From #14, palliate - improve, make better, heal, ameliorate.

Harry wrote: "...This statement no longer holds true due to the state of today's communication systems. A pure democracy using cell phones etc. could be easily implemented. This would be quite dangerous!!!..."

That is an interesting assertion, Harry, that with today's communications we could implement a pure democracy across a larger number of people. There is much food for thought, there.

My first reaction is to think through if there are other limitations besides the limitation of communication/travel. I think there might still be a limitation in size due to human nature. Basically, the more people in a pure democracy, there are that many more opinions, but also less time to listen to each person express their ideas. At some point we may start getting people who would rather not express their ideas and opinions, or even comment/vote on others' ideas. (After all, we have people who don't vote now.)

I'm just starting to think this through, so let me know what I may be missing. Perhaps there is the technology for a large, pure, democracy, but there still may be other size limitations.

Interesting perspectives both; but I side with the founding fathers for a republic...there is always someone who has to make the final decision; a decision where they have to hold their nose and follow through. With a democracy; I think the majority would always be catered to without the needs of the minorities being met. I think right now we live in a very self serving society - me me me.

With a republican democracy you have people who can take the time to study and understand the issues. With everyone voting on every issue; most I'm sure would be ignorant and is so well refered to in several papers "imbecilic"; which would be very dangerous.
Bentley, it has and always will be me, me, me. We were very lucky indeed to have the selfless educated men we did at our founding.

Bentley wrote: "...With a democracy; I think the majority would always be catered to without the needs of the minorities being met..."

A very good point, Bentley. Sad, isn't it.

Harry wrote: "With a republican democracy you have people who can take the time to study and understand the issues. With everyone voting on every issue; most I'm sure would be ignorant and is so well refered to ..."

True Harry..we need a few of these men right now.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Bentley wrote: "...With a democracy; I think the majority would always be catered to without the needs of the minorities being met..."

A very good point, Bentley. Sad, isn't it."

I wonder if we will ever have another generation like the folks who sacrificed so much at home and during World War II. Or folks like the founding fathers who put their families and homes on the back burner to help the fledgling nation as John Adams did. What sacrifices. I wonder how they would feel about the new and different situations this nation faces now.

Let's pray for the prosperity and peace that would never again put American families in that situation.

Amen.

Terrific and number 10 is a biggie - we will be continuing our journey soon on the Papers so make sure you join in. These discussions are ones which are so interesting in discovering the true intent of our founding fathers and what the Constitution's interpretation really was.

These papers have great impact today in terms of Constitutional Law and in of course Supreme Court decisions. Fascinating study and I often wonder why they are not mandatory reading in high school.

That should be an interesting contrast.

I have left some of the previous discussion posts. But we are beginning anew - so please add your own comments - this is a very important essay.

Madison, come back, we need you:

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."

I found this opposing view of Madison's argument in the Wikipedia article about Federalist #10 about how minority factions can be very effective in obstructing the majority. This can be good or bad depending on your point of view. We've seen a lot of delay tactics and obstruction in Congress in recent years where government grinds to a halt. Important bills or nominations die in committee. No method of government is perfect:

Garry Wills is a noted critic of Madison's argument in Federalist No. 10. In his book Explaining America, he adopts the position of Robert Dahl in arguing that Madison's framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. Instead, Wills claims: "Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...

by Garry Wills

The Gary Willis quote above says "what Madison prevents is not faction, but action." But Madison wasn't trying to prevent faction. Madison expressly states this in the first paragraphs of #10. Factions are inevitable in a free society.

Madison's idea was to use factions, which would be numerous and diverse in a large republic, to protect the people from oppression, and he foresaw this would make action more difficult. I think this was Madison's intentional hamstringing of government.

Madison says as much in #10:

"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."

Madison designed the constitution to make it difficult for a majority to form, and once formed, have difficulty acting in unison.

This fairly well describes our government and is a reason why people are so frustrated with it. At the same time, I'm inclined to disagree with Willis that Madison is not protecting the common good.

Even now we can see Madison's theory at work. Trump's zero tolerance immigration policy spawned a backlash against separating children from their parents at the border. In response, a faction of Republicans in Congress push for an immigration bill, but despite controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, the Republicans fail to pass legislation. Majority controls, but can't "act in unison with each other" due to diversity of opinion within the majority party. This seems to be just as Madison foresaw in #10. I'm certain other examples abound, regardless of which party is in the majority.

James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Louis Ketcham addresses the development of Madison's ideas regarding faction as a means of protecting liberty, which Madison presented at the Constitutional Convention. Many reviewers say Ketcham is dry, boring and too detailed, but I thought it was great.

Here’s a quote from Ralph Ketcham James Madison: A Biography concerning the importance of factions in Madison’s governmental theory:
“An enlarged republic ‘was the only defense against the inconveniences of democracy consistent with the democratic form of Government.’ Next, Madison presented to the convention for the first time the argument that since honesty, respect for character, and conscience had proven insufficient guards against faction and oppression of the minority, only the inclusion with a government of a multitude of interests, sentiments, and sections, each with power to resist the others, would prevent majority tyranny. History proves conclusively that ‘where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure.’ The only remedy, he concluded, ‘is to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interest and parties, that in the first place a majority will not be likely at the same moment to have a common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent upon us to then to try this remedy, and with that view to frame a republican system on such a scale and in such a form as will controul all the evils which have been experienced.’” At 200-201, quoting a speech by James Madison as set forth in the Records of the Constitution Convention June 6, 1787, pages 134-136.

Connie wrote: "I found this opposing view of Madison's argument in the Wikipedia article about Federalist #10 about how minority factions can be very effective in obstructing the majority. This can be good or bad..."

Maybe the idea that the minority can slow or stop any change is not a bad thing. If it were easy to change, the long term result would be chaos and constant unknown. If Madison was intending to preventing action he had incredible foresight.

Christopher wrote: "The Gary Willis quote above says "what Madison prevents is not faction, but action." But Madison wasn't trying to prevent faction. Madison expressly states this in the first paragraphs of #10. Fact..."

That's a good example, Christopher, about today's politics, and Madison's theory at work.

Melissa wrote: "Connie wrote: "I found this opposing view of Madison's argument in the Wikipedia article about Federalist #10 about how minority factions can be very effective in obstructing the majority. This can..."

We've seen many times where the President wants to institute change quickly through an executive order, but the courts and the legislature can sometimes act as a check to that power or at least slow things down.

Depending on our political positions, sometimes we're glad that Congress moves slowly and sometimes we're not. But at least the issue gets talked about, and the public gets used to the idea of change.

The Founding Fathers were very smart to put in those checks and balances, as well as the Bill of Rights.

Connie and Melissa - I tend to agree with you that the check of faction is very much worthwhile but can be a bad thing, too. Sometimes the checks need to be removed or ignored so that action can occur expeditiously.
As I said previously, I recently read Ketcham’s book on Madison (which I loved, but is also the only frame of reference for my comments). Madison is President and the War of 1812 breaks out. Madison doesn’t seem to be able to manage the war effort very well and one result is that British troops march on Washington unmolested and burn the capital. Contrast to Andrew Jackson who, shortly thereafter, takes the initiative to declare martial law in New Orleans in order to gather troops and supplies. Jackson defeats the British at the Battle of New Orleans.
There other aspects of #10 I find interesting - one of which is Madison’s take on human nature, which is bleak:
“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”
Yikes!
Faction based upon identity seems to strongly evoke our “disposition to vex and oppress” more than any other. Racial, sexual, and religious minorities are the dogs kicked by demagogues, dictators, and the majority time and time again.
And I also have a question - Madison’s refers to examples of failed republican governments and democracies in the past. Madison says “[t]he instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished….” What popular governments is he referring to?

Madison was an intellectual, and schooled in the classics. I wonder if he's referring to the ancient Greeks.

Connie wrote: "Madison was an intellectual, and schooled in the classics. I wonder if he's referring to the ancient Greeks."

Most likely.

After reading this letter and giving it some thought, I've come to the conclusion that I am not as confident as I used to be that the Constitution has the ability to withstand the pressure of a majority faction. I believe Madison and the FFs relied too heavily on the people's love of country winning out over their own love of profit.

Tom- I agree. I don’t fully understand the Citizen’s United holding, but, to the extent the Court extended a right of free speech to a corporation, the extension of rights found within the bill of rights to a corporate entity stands in direct opposition to a republican form of government. The authority of our government is supposed to derive from people, not business interests.

Excellent Article:

‘Federalist’ Principles of Governing Are Dead – Consider the Impasse Over ‘The Wall’
Bob Barr |Posted: Jan 02, 2019 12:01 AM



Two hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.”

Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’”

Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays.

Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting.

In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch. This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body.

By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to the People of the entire country; not to the Legislative Branch.

Conversely, and in another important principle incorporated into the Constitution, Members of the Legislative Branch (the two Houses of Congress) neither answer to nor are to be controlled by the President. Rather, each Member of Congress (whether Representative or Senator) is to reflect and be answerable to the constituents of his or her district or state; not to the President.

While those interests may from time to time coincide, U.S. Representatives and Senators are not serving in that august institution merely to do a president’s bidding.

So, what has changed (other than a profound ignorance of the principles undergirding our constitutional form of government)? Why do Republican Members of Congress by and large consider it their bounden duty to use their powers and responsibilities to do the bidding of a president simply because the person occupying that office is of the same political party as are they? Similarly, why do Democrats operate in the same mode when the White House is occupied by a person with a “D” after their name?

In a word, what has turned our political structure on its head, is the one thing our Founding Fathers disdained and warned us about – party politics. Especially in the closed, two-party system that has constrained politics in America for more than a century and a half, the primary allegiance deemed important to the vast majority of Representatives and Senators now serving, is to the President who happens to be of their same political party. If the president is a Republican, the congressional leaders of that party consider it their obligation to employ their powers to enact his agenda; and failure to toe that line is considered cause for punishment. The Democrats operate in just the same manner.

Thus have the lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches become muddled, if not largely erased; and most Members of Congress now rarely assert a voice or an agenda independent from that of the president. Members not of the president’s party consider it their primary responsibility to oppose the Administration’s agenda; those who share the president’s political affiliation view it as their almost sacred responsibility to do whatever they can to support the agenda of “their” president.

More:
https://townhall.com/columnists/bobba...

Source: Townhall

I agree with this I really do - what do the others of you think about this? Keep the filibuster and stop the nuclear option - we need to pass bills that reflect the populace of America and not a limited view - bipartisanship is important - and of course reflection and putting the country first over a political party.

Conservatives Need to Love the Filibuster Again
It matters. It really does.
by CHARLES SYKES FEBRUARY 4, 2019 4:01 AM


Huey Long, after his record-breaking filibuster in 1935

Link: https://thebulwark.com/conservatives-...

Source: The Bulwark

Interesting Video - Khan Academy
Federalist Papers

Lynne Cheney, author of “James Madison: A Life Reconsidered” in conversation with Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute. Created by Aspen Institute.

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...

Source: Khan Academy

The moderator feels that this paper needs more discussion and review so we will continue to work on this paper.