Understanding Federalist 10 and Factions

Hey everybody, welcome back! I read Federalist 10 so you don't have to. Smash that like button to find out the biggest threat to the new nation and Madison Solution. Okay, so if in AP Goverworld the Constitution is the king of documents, then Federalist 10 is like the crown prince. The AP exam is obsessed with this Federalist paper more than the others. Let's start with just a tiny bit of background first. As soon as the Constitution convention ended, debates were raging across the country over whether people should vote to ratify or oppose the new constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote essays to convince people to vote for ratification, and today we know these essays as the Federalist Paper. The tenth essay was written by James Madison and has this super catchy title, Federalist Number Ten, and is all about factions. I'm gonna cut to the chase and tell you Madison's solution up front. A large republic is the best way to control the negative effects of factions. Okay, with that in mind, let's start at the beginning. In the opening sentence, Madison claims that one of the best things about the new Union is that it will break and control the violence of faction. Listen, I may not know much, but when he says violence of faction, I know that doesn't mean anything. doesn't sound good. So what is a faction anyway? I'm glad you asked. Madison defines a faction as a majority or minority of people who are united by some common purpose that goes against the rights of other citizens, or what we might call the public good. So basically factions are groups of people. But Madison isn't worried about all groups. He's worried about groups that want to harm other citizens or society as a whole. Now Madison is super thorough and spends the next several paragraphs telling us different solutions that won't work before his final reveal that a larger public is the best way to control the negative effects of factions. I'm going to say that sentence enough times that you'll have to remember it after this video ends. First, Madsen tells us that you could remove the causes of factions, or control the effects. Well, if you want to remove the causes of faction, there's two ways to do that. Destroying liberty, or giving everybody the same opinion. Do either of those sound like good ideas? Yeah, didn't think so. Destroying liberty is worse than the problem of factions. So yeah, we could destroy liberty and then there wouldn't be factions, but that's a terrible solution. It'd be like if you told a doctor that your foot hurts, so he amputates it. Like okay, yeah, the foot pain is gone, but the solution is way worse than the problem. And the second solution, giving everybody the same opinion, isn't realistic, so that won't work either. It needs to be emphasized that he's concluding that the solution is NOT to prevent factions. Madison says that the latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of men, which is- is an 18th century way to say that they're natural. People are always going to form groups. They're going to find people who are similar to them, who have similar hobbies or whatever stuff they have in common, and they'll naturally form factions. That being the case, the only solution left is controlling the negative effects of faction. And this raises another good question, namely, what exactly are the negative effects of faction? Madison is focused on making sure that majority factions are unable to oppress minority factions, even if they want to. He's He says that the majority must be rendered unable to come together to carry into execution their schemes of oppression. In other words, we have to set up a government that makes it impossible for the majority to harm others. The only two options that could be considered in the new nation are setting up a democracy or a republic. Listen, I know that these days the word democracy typically has a pretty positive connotation, but that was most certainly not true back then. Madison and most of the framers really were not fans of democracy. Not at all. So the next section is Madison explaining how bad democracy is. He says that in a pure democracy, majority factions will tyrannize and oppress minorities. So yeah, he really doesn't like democracy. Let's break this down further though. First thing is to know that he's talking about minorities in the mathematical sense. When it comes to voting, a minority is any group that's less than 50% of the population. So he's not talking about any specific minority and he certainly doesn't have race in mind. Next is that when he says pure democracy, He's referring to what we call direct democracy. He's talking about a society with a small number of citizens who vote directly on policies. And democracies can admit of no cure for the mischief of faction, because he says there's nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, meaning the minority party. If you're in a pure democracy, every issue is decided by a vote. And by definition, the majority will always win. So if it wants to do something bad to the minority, there's nothing the minority can do to defend itself. For this- For this reason, he says that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention. They are totally incompatible with personal security and protecting property rights, and in general have been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths. This is a perfect example of the idea that democracy is really mob rule. Now we're ready for the moment of truth. Madison F— unveils his solution. So what is the best way to control the negative effects of faction? Well unless you've been sleeping this whole time you should be able to say it with me, a larger public is the best way to control the negative effects of faction. Remember Brutus preferred smaller republics and more democratic decision-making, and he argued that large republics have always become tyrannical. And he was right. So Madison has to come up with a clever argument for why this large republic will be different. He says that in a smaller republic, you're going to have fewer decisions. distinct parties, so there will be fewer competing interests, and the people will be more similar. So you're often going to have a majority that will be able to get its way. Brutus said the same thing. And at first, this might sound like a good thing, but Madison points out the problem. It will be too easy for the majority to get together and execute their plans of oppression. In other words, since it's easy to have a majority, it's easy to have a majority that wants to oppress the minority, and there's nothing the minority can do to stop it. Clearly that's not good. On the other hand, And if you extend the sphere, meaning you take in more people, you have a larger area that's under this government. Then you'll have a greater variety of parties. There will be more competing interests, and it's less likely that a majority will exist that has the common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. This is a very counterintuitive solution. He's saying that to control the problem of factions, the answer is more factions. And with more factions, the relative power of each faction will be diluted, making it less likely that there will be a conflict. there will be a majority faction that actually wants to strip away the rights of others and be able to do so. Madison doesn't just focus on size. He also praises the republic more broadly, saying that representatives will be people who are more knowledgeable, wiser, and have a higher perspective of what's best for the nation. And because of this, they'll be less likely to oppress minorities than people in a democracy would be if they were voting on policies directly themselves. And here at the end of the essay, he says that he beholds a republican remedy for the for the disease most incident to Republican government. All right, so one more time, stay with me. A large Republic is the best way to control the negative effects of factions. And this time I've added at the end and protect minority rights while maintaining majority rule. That's the goal. Allow the majority to make policy, but don't let it take away minority rights. Clearly that's a tough balance, but Madison is trying to thread that needle in Federalist number 10. And that's it for this one. Until next time, this has been a La Money production. Thanks again for watching, and if you want to do your best in class and on the exam, consider checking out the Ultimate Review Packet. Three full-length practice tests, great study guides, tons of practice for each unit, and exclusive FRQ help and practice. Preview unit 1 for free, and I will see you in the next video.

Hey everybody, welcome back! I read Federalist 10 so you don't have to. Smash that like button to find out the biggest threat to the new nation and Madison Solution.

Okay, so if in AP Goverworld the Constitution is the king of documents, then Federalist 10 is like the crown prince. The AP exam is obsessed with this Federalist paper more than the others. Let's start with just a tiny bit of background first. As soon as the Constitution convention ended, debates were raging across the country over whether people should vote to ratify or oppose the new constitution.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote essays to convince people to vote for ratification, and today we know these essays as the Federalist Paper. The tenth essay was written by James Madison and has this super catchy title, Federalist Number Ten, and is all about factions. I'm gonna cut to the chase and tell you Madison's solution up front. A large republic is the best way to control the negative effects of factions. Okay, with that in mind, let's start at the beginning.

In the opening sentence, Madison claims that one of the best things about the new Union is that it will break and control the violence of faction. Listen, I may not know much, but when he says violence of faction, I know that doesn't mean anything. doesn't sound good.

So what is a faction anyway? I'm glad you asked. Madison defines a faction as a majority or minority of people who are united by some common purpose that goes against the rights of other citizens, or what we might call the public good.

So basically factions are groups of people. But Madison isn't worried about all groups. He's worried about groups that want to harm other citizens or society as a whole.

Now Madison is super thorough and spends the next several paragraphs telling us different solutions that won't work before his final reveal that a larger public is the best way to control the negative effects of factions. I'm going to say that sentence enough times that you'll have to remember it after this video ends. First, Madsen tells us that you could remove the causes of factions, or control the effects. Well, if you want to remove the causes of faction, there's two ways to do that. Destroying liberty, or giving everybody the same opinion.

Do either of those sound like good ideas? Yeah, didn't think so. Destroying liberty is worse than the problem of factions. So yeah, we could destroy liberty and then there wouldn't be factions, but that's a terrible solution. It'd be like if you told a doctor that your foot hurts, so he amputates it.

Like okay, yeah, the foot pain is gone, but the solution is way worse than the problem. And the second solution, giving everybody the same opinion, isn't realistic, so that won't work either. It needs to be emphasized that he's concluding that the solution is NOT to prevent factions.

Madison says that the latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of men, which is- is an 18th century way to say that they're natural. People are always going to form groups. They're going to find people who are similar to them, who have similar hobbies or whatever stuff they have in common, and they'll naturally form factions. That being the case, the only solution left is controlling the negative effects of faction. And this raises another good question, namely, what exactly are the negative effects of faction?

Madison is focused on making sure that majority factions are unable to oppress minority factions, even if they want to. He's He says that the majority must be rendered unable to come together to carry into execution their schemes of oppression. In other words, we have to set up a government that makes it impossible for the majority to harm others. The only two options that could be considered in the new nation are setting up a democracy or a republic.

Listen, I know that these days the word democracy typically has a pretty positive connotation, but that was most certainly not true back then. Madison and most of the framers really were not fans of democracy. Not at all. So the next section is Madison explaining how bad democracy is. He says that in a pure democracy, majority factions will tyrannize and oppress minorities.

So yeah, he really doesn't like democracy. Let's break this down further though. First thing is to know that he's talking about minorities in the mathematical sense. When it comes to voting, a minority is any group that's less than 50% of the population.

So he's not talking about any specific minority and he certainly doesn't have race in mind. Next is that when he says pure democracy, He's referring to what we call direct democracy. He's talking about a society with a small number of citizens who vote directly on policies.

And democracies can admit of no cure for the mischief of faction, because he says there's nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, meaning the minority party. If you're in a pure democracy, every issue is decided by a vote. And by definition, the majority will always win.

So if it wants to do something bad to the minority, there's nothing the minority can do to defend itself. For this- For this reason, he says that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention. They are totally incompatible with personal security and protecting property rights, and in general have been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths. This is a perfect example of the idea that democracy is really mob rule. Now we're ready for the moment of truth.

Madison F— unveils his solution. So what is the best way to control the negative effects of faction? Well unless you've been sleeping this whole time you should be able to say it with me, a larger public is the best way to control the negative effects of faction.

Remember Brutus preferred smaller republics and more democratic decision-making, and he argued that large republics have always become tyrannical. And he was right. So Madison has to come up with a clever argument for why this large republic will be different. He says that in a smaller republic, you're going to have fewer decisions.

distinct parties, so there will be fewer competing interests, and the people will be more similar. So you're often going to have a majority that will be able to get its way. Brutus said the same thing.

And at first, this might sound like a good thing, but Madison points out the problem. It will be too easy for the majority to get together and execute their plans of oppression. In other words, since it's easy to have a majority, it's easy to have a majority that wants to oppress the minority, and there's nothing the minority can do to stop it.

Clearly that's not good. On the other hand, And if you extend the sphere, meaning you take in more people, you have a larger area that's under this government. Then you'll have a greater variety of parties. There will be more competing interests, and it's less likely that a majority will exist that has the common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. This is a very counterintuitive solution.

He's saying that to control the problem of factions, the answer is more factions. And with more factions, the relative power of each faction will be diluted, making it less likely that there will be a conflict. there will be a majority faction that actually wants to strip away the rights of others and be able to do so. Madison doesn't just focus on size. He also praises the republic more broadly, saying that representatives will be people who are more knowledgeable, wiser, and have a higher perspective of what's best for the nation.

And because of this, they'll be less likely to oppress minorities than people in a democracy would be if they were voting on policies directly themselves. And here at the end of the essay, he says that he beholds a republican remedy for the for the disease most incident to Republican government. All right, so one more time, stay with me.

A large Republic is the best way to control the negative effects of factions. And this time I've added at the end and protect minority rights while maintaining majority rule. That's the goal.

Allow the majority to make policy, but don't let it take away minority rights. Clearly that's a tough balance, but Madison is trying to thread that needle in Federalist number 10. And that's it for this one. Until next time, this has been a La Money production.

Thanks again for watching, and if you want to do your best in class and on the exam, consider checking out the Ultimate Review Packet. Three full-length practice tests, great study guides, tons of practice for each unit, and exclusive FRQ help and practice. Preview unit 1 for free, and I will see you in the next video.

Transcript for:Understanding Federalist 10 and Factions

Transcript for:
Understanding Federalist 10 and Factions