The Federalist Papers Analysis
Directions:
Answer on a separate sheet of paper in complete sentences. Do not write on this page.
Objective:
Through a reading of selected writings from The Federalist Papers, the student will gain a better
perspective on the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Federalist #10 (Woll, p. 171-176)
Author: James Madison
1. What does Madison mean when he refers to “factions”? What causes of faction does he list?
Faction is created when citizens become united by some common goal or interest, without consideration to
the rights of other citizens or to the long-run interest of that community.
Public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties and that policies are too often decided by
superior forces and pure majority, rather than rules of justice and the rights of the minority.(172)
Causes of factions:
 Zeal for different opinions concerning religion and government
 Speculation
 Attachment to different leaders contending for power
 Unequal distribution of property (wealth)
All these divide mankind into parties and inflame each other with mutual animosity, turning individuals to
spend more time opposing each other, rather than cooperate towards the common good. (173, first new
paragraph)
2. How could we cure the "mischiefs of faction," according to Madison? Why are these remedies worse than
the disease?
Faction can be cured by 1) removing its causes and 2) by controlling its effects.
Removing liberty would end faction, but liberty is essential to political life as a whole. Diversity of men,
where natural rights originate, would create an only more oppressive situation.
3. What two options does Madison offer for controlling the effects of majority factions?
When the faction is a minority, the solution is supplied by the republican principle of majority rule, outvoting the faction from advancement.
When the faction is the majority, it is a more difficult process to halt, because the rule of government
enables oppression of the public good to occur. There needs to be a delicate balance between limiting the
effects of a majority faction and still preserving the spirit of popular government.
Two options to control these effects:
1) Either prevent the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority
2) Or the majority must be prevented from carry out their efforts to oppress—this must be through a
republican form of government, rather than a democracy.
4. According to Madison, how do democracy and republic differ? Why is a republic superior in inhibiting the
effects of factions?
Democracy delegates government to a greater number of citizens, and a greater sphere of country
Republic delegates government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest
 Refines and enlarge public views by using a chosen wise and just body of citizens—specifically an
extensive republic is needed to mask the influence of the few unjust representatives
Federalist #51 (Woll, p. 44-45)
Author: James Madison
5. What is meant by, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”? What does this reveal about
Madison’s views?
Humans, by nature, are prone to self-interest. A government’s role is to serve the interest of the people as a
whole, not the individual. Madison alludes to an inherent need for federal control of the people’s
government.
6. What did Madison mean when he wrote, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men
over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed: and
in the next place oblige it to control itself”? How does the Constitution provide safeguards against tyranny?
The Constitution distributes and separates power by dividing and arranging the several offices in such a
manner that each may be a check for the other. Within each branch, such as the legislature, it also is
rendered by different modes of election, and different principles of action.
Draw a T-chart with the left side describing the “Pro” argument for the Constitution (Federalists) and the right side
describing the “Con” argument (Anti-Federalists). Bring this completed for the debate tomorrow. You will not
know which side you are on until a coin toss the day of. Participation and ability to form an astute argument will be
graded.
PRO
CON






Argued that it is unrealistic to expect people in a
large nation to give up their own interests for the
benefit of others. A large republic organized on
the basis of checks and balances, and with power
divided between the national and state
government would be better. It would make it
more difficult for any interest group to obtain a
majority and violate other peoples’ rights.
Thought the national government could
adequately protect peoples’ rights because of the
system of checks and balances and the separation
of power.
Felt the national government under the Articles
of Confederation was too weak, so a stronger
national government was needed to deal with
trade, currency, and defense.
Believed a strong executive branch was needed
and a system of checks and balances would keep
it from dominating the other two branches of
government.
Considered a bill of rights unnecessary because
the powers of the government are limited. It also
would be impossible to list all rights in the
Constitution.




Felt that republican governments worked best in
small communities of citizens with similar
interests and beliefs. The new nation was so large
and diverse that the people would not be able to
agree on their common welfare.
Argued that the national government would be
located too far from most communities,
preventing the people from actively participating
in the government.
Afraid the Constitution gave the national
government too much power and that the states
would lose their freedom.
Believed the Constitution gave too much power
to the executive branch, and it would be a threat
to their natural rights.
Thought the Constitution should include a bill of
rights.