My attempt at interpreting the arguments of Federalist 10...

Madison starts with offering that one of the many benefits to having an established a Union is its ability to “break” or control the violence of divisive or “factious” forces, which he points out to possibly be the most dangerous threat to the republic. Madison proposes that confusion and injustice have been the downfall to many government works and that the friend of popular government must provide a cure for the danger of faction but at the same time not violate the principles he himself is attached to. He admits that it is a difficult challenge to resolve both the issues of the impassioned, overbearing majority while maintaining the right’s of minorities versus the issues posed on the other hand in which the government is too weak to ensure and act in the entire people’s interest or the public good, setting up his argument that there needs to be enough power in the government to stop destructive, factious spirit that will inevitably arise and could potentially spell demise for the nation.

On that note, he begins to explain why it is the nature of a society to become divided by passions, interests, or beliefs. His reasoning be that if a government is to completely abolish factions it would have to destroy liberty or secondly, it would have to some how enforce that every citizen behave and think in the same way. The first solution he describes as unwise for liberty is far more important and essential than it is to have a country with a “uniformity of interest”. Secondly, if we are to have liberty, it is natural that man is diverse in capability, thought, interest and passion and this will play out as larger groups in society. Some of who will share and oppose each others’ interests, thus making a uniform party impractical.

He goes further in describing a free society as factious almost in its very fabric. With this in mind, he makes a point that no group of men should be both judges and parties. This is a dilemma because often law is affecting groups, not just individuals, and there will certainly be a multitude of different groups jockeying for their interests, and some of which will diverge from the interest of the public.

The idea that the “causes” of faction are essential, but it is the duty of the government to control those “effects” to its best ability is put forth. A faction that has a majority is of his prime concern, as it may sacrifice the interest of the public for it’s own, which is one of the many reasons why he marks a pure democracy as inferior. Madison offers that a republic is a way to hinder the tyranny of the majority and that by increasing the amount representatives it reduces the chance of ‘a cabal of a few’ from subverting the will of the people. Yet, at the same time, too many representatives will cause disorder. He argues a republic will allow for greater number citizens over an also greater area as well. He continues to contemplate the dilemmas of the downsides to both having many electors as opposed to fewer, local ones or having fewer representatives opposed to more. Still Madison holds that as a republic is advantageous to a democracy, a large republic is to a small republic, and though the republic they’ve established is not perfect, it would prevent “improper or wicked projects” such as the equal distribution of property or paper money to engulf the entire country and more likely only a smaller area such a state or district. Proudly he states this to be the best defense against factions who have other interests at heart rather than the people’s.

Afterthoughts...

This is my interpretation of Federalist 10 written by James Madison, please let me know if you think I missed anything, if you disagree, or have a different take. This is the first I've read of any of the Federalist Papers and a couple times through out reading it, I was taken aback by his thoughts and ability to extrapolate. And still I need to reread it because the vocabulary was very challenging for me and I know some passages just went over my head.

As someone who is unsure in the legitimacy of government, I found the read very satisfying. Generally, it gave me a newfound respect for understanding, intellect, humility and integrity of our founding fathers, men who risked it all. In my eyes, it is hard to see a world in which we have no governments, but I believe evolutionarily speaking, we are moving towards more decentralization, more freedom and perhaps one day, it would be possible to achieve a peaceful anarchy. But with so many nefarious, violent "factions", or evil interests, it seems hard to be able to defend a free society with out a powerfully unifying government. Let me know what you all think! I'll just end with an excerpt that I found quite striking:

A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

🐸 GAB @newtreehints
🐦 TWITTER @newtreehints
🎬 DTUBE @newtreehints
📷 NSTGRM @newtreehints