| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "FEDERALIST 10": |
|
|
James Madison and "The Federalist Paper Number 10", 2002.
This paper discusses James Madison's beliefs as expressed in "The Federalist Paper Number 10", which helped persuade people into ratifying the proposed U.S. Constitution.
610 words (approx. 2.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses that, in "The Federalist Paper Number 10", Madison responded to critics who had argued that the United States had too many "factions," to be ruled democratically by a single government. The author states that Madison believed that factions posed a problem to a democratic form of government but had a positive role to play. The paper concludes that James Madison's ideas and arguments in "The Federalist Paper Number 10" remain the foundations of pluralistic democracy.
From the Paper
"Madison acknowledged the importance of factions in the opening paragraph, stating that, ?Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction? . In prescribing how to rule and control the effects of factions, Madison detailed their relationships with other important concepts, such as liberty and property, and asserted his belief that factions were both the underlying basis of, and the fundamental problem in, politics."
| |
|
Federalist Paper no 10., 2002.
An experienced-based critique of James Madison's Federalist Paper Number 10.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A experiential critique of Federalist paper number 10 by James Madison. By understanding the theory of 'union' in a republican democracy, we can learn how Madison argues for his case, and why it is erroneous on certain merits.
| |
|
"The Federalist No. 10", 2005.
This paper discusses the political theory of James Madison, which he expressed in "The Federalist No. 10".
785 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that James Madison's most amazing political prophecy, contained within the pages of "The Federalist No. 10", was that the size of the United States and its variety of interests could be guaranteed of stability and justice under the new constitution. The author points out that Madison made this prophecy when the accepted opinion among many politicians, such as David Hume, was the opposite. The paper relates that Madison's solution for the class struggle was not to set up an absolute and irresponsible state to regiment society from above but to multiply the deposits of political power in the state itself sufficiently in order to break down the sole dualism of rich and poor, allowing for a guarantee of liberty and security.
From the Paper
"Starting with the proposition that "in republican government, the majority, ultimately give the law." Madison then asks, what is to restrain an interesting majority from unjust violations of the minority's rights? Three motives could be claimed to meliorate the selfishness of the majority: first, "prudent regard for their own good, as involved in the general...good" and second, "respect for character" and finally, religiousness. After examining each in its turn Madison concludes that they are but a frail bulwark against a ruthless party."
| |
|
"The Federalist Paper Number 10", 2007.
This paper describes James Madison's political outlook as expressed in "The Federalist Paper Number 10."
1,058 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes how James Madison was in favor of a republican form of government rather than a democracy. The author cites "The Federalist Paper Number 10" to support this thesis. The paper further describes a republican form of government compared to a democracy. The paper concludes with examples of why Madison and his co-author Alexander Hamilton found democracy to be a less acceptable form of government that a republic.
From the Paper
"Although James Madison may stand as one of the Founding Fathers of the American nation and system of law, he is not one of the Founding Fathers of American democracy. Madison, as expressed in his essay The Federalist Paper No. 10, favored republicanism, and specifically republicanism in a large nation as a way of stifling the tendency of the common populace to form into dangerous factional groups that expressed the interested, as opposed to the disinterested popular will. "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended." (Madison, The Federalist 10, 1787) Later, Madison wrote "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." (Madison, The Federalist 14, 1787)"
| |
|
James Madison's "Federalist 10 Paper", 2001.
Paper discussing James Madison's "Federalist 10 Paper", and the discrepancies found therein.
1,147 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses James Madison's "Federalist 10 Paper" and its effects on American government. Distinctions are made between the concepts of "republicanism" and "democracy," and what they implied for the creation of an American legislative system. The author finds discrepancies between what is implied and what is stated in this Madison work.
From the Paper
"In James Madison?s essay, the Federalist 10 paper, Madison articulates his hesitations about popular rule, or more accurately, ?pure democracy,? and the pernicious ?faction? that might result from it. To obviate the destructive forces of faction that are implicit in ?pure democracy,? he offers instead a ?republican? form of government. In this arguably elitist document, Madison cites the two methods of ?curing the mischiefs of faction,? by either ?removing its causes? or ?controlling its effects.
| |
|
Federalist Paper #10, 2005.
Analysis of James Madison's discussion of the Union in Federalist Paper #10.
1,493 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains why the author finds Madison's arguments about how the Union could be effective in controlling the factions of a nation, convincing. The paper summarizes Madison's definition of the problem, i.e., how to control the factions of a nation, the two methods Madison outlines for dealing with such a problem, Madison's argument for one method over the other, and Madison's suggestions for dealing with the consequences of factions within a nation. The paper points out how Madison's arguments won over support for the ratification of the Constitution as a way of securing government by representation and that they would have influenced the author's decision to ratify the Constitution as well.
From the Paper
"Federalist Paper # 10 begins with a discussion of the problem at hand, that of how to control the factions of a nation. The paper discusses how factions, identified as ?a number of citizens?who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest...? (Federalist Paper #10, para 2), have historically been the downfalls of democracy. According to the paper, specific factions within the larger body of government often disregard the public opinion, and good of the public, to pursue their own regulations based on their own belief system. The paper also points out that while the people of the Union may not wish to believe this to be true in the case of America, that it is in fact a problem (Federalist Paper #10, para 1)."
| |
|
Federalists and Anti-Federalists, 2004.
A discussion of the different visions of the Federalists and Anti-federalists for the young country before the American Civil War.
2,101 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the different views of Federalists and Anti-Federalists, or Jeffersonian Republicans, and how the two parties emerged. It analyzes how their opposing political agendas led to such event, such as the War of 1812, industrialization, and the development of the Monroe Doctrine. It also examines how the political visions of the parties were extremely different and how each had accomplishments that changed the country forever.
From the Paper
"The Federalists felt that there should be a loose interpretation of the Constitution, and they saw a need for a unified nation. Federalist leaders were concerned with a loss of social and political power due to excessive liberties for the people. They scorned democracy and did not think that states should have too many powers. The reason for this is that America would be many separate states, not one unified nation. Also, if people were given too many liberties, they could be abused and it could end in chaos. In the case of Shay?s Rebellion, it was looked at as a threat to social and political order. Because of the poor economy, farmers and merchants were using credit. However, when merchants were in need of cash, they called for the repayment of the money owed. Farmers were brought to court, and this brought outrage among them. "
| |
|
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, 2002.
This paper discusses the issues that divided the leadership of the early United States of America into the Federalists and the Anti-federalists camps and the resulting structure of the United States of America.
865 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Anti-federalist leaders -- Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Eldridge Gerry, and Patrick Henry -- opposed the ratification of the Constitution because they believed the states should be the primary protectors of individual rights. The author relates that the Federalists leaders -- John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton -- supported a strong government that would reign in selfish human instincts and channel them toward the pursuit of the common good. The paper reports that the Federalists won the debate: Therefore, the Constitution provides a strong federal government; but the Anti-federalists were important because they prevented the federal government from gaining too many powers and saw to inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
From the Paper
"The Federalists began seeking to reform the Articles in 1783. In 1786, the financial hardships that the states were facing became apparent when Daniel Shays led a rebellion against the courts. This scene was an example of how the people could take matters into their own hands and it instilled fear in the hearts of the ?propertied class? (170). This fear leads to the Federalist belief that a stronger federal government was most certainly needed. (170) In all fairness, the Federalists were looking for a type of government that was not as oppressive as the type of rule they had in British, but a little stronger than the current weak American government."
| |
|
Federalism, 2007.
This paper looks at the Federalist Papers, focusing on Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51 by John Madison.
1,930 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer claims that out of the 85 articles that comprise The Federalist, arguably No. 10 and No. 51, by James Madison, are of particular importance. The writer notes that certainly Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 address the issues of the danger of factions and the importance of separation of powers, but they go beyond these concepts. The writer points out that both articles give the reader insight to Madison's views on human nature, society and the proper structure of government. The writer concludes with Madison's opinion that the society that naturally subdivides into classes faces the ever-present conflict between the will of the majority versus the need to protect the rights of the minority.
From the Paper
"It is in the discussion of factions that Madison reveals some of his views regarding the nature of man, human society and the proper structure of government.
Man, according to Madison, is a creature that is driven to unification by a variety of catalysts. These catalysts center on a common passion or interest. It is in man's nature to band together with those who are like-minded. Although sometimes this banding together results in a positive force within society, at times, it results in what Madison terms a 'faction' whose interests are in direct contradiction to the rights of the members of society. Madison notes that either these factions can be have their effects controlled, or government can remove its causes and ability for formation."
| |
|
James Madison and Rousseau, 2007.
This paper discusses that, in "Federalist 10", James Madison was responding to Jean Jacques Rousseau's republican model of democracy as presented in "On the Social Contract".
955 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in "Federalist 10", James Madison sought to ensure that the problems identified by Rousseau would be addressed through constitutional checks and balances and a federal system of government. The author points out that, in response to the political model of Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau argued that power is invested in the will of a united people. The paper relates that Rousseau also believed, when the social bond is shattered and special interests aggressively pursue their own agendas while insisting they are acting in the public good, the general will becomes silenced and covert motives guide citizens and groups. The author continues that Madison contended that the republican form of government embodied in the proposed Constitution was conducive to free debate and allowed the various factions certain to emerge to contend with one another and influence the government.
From the Paper
"Madison arguments were based upon his conviction that political ambition would be checked by rival political ambition, for power would be divided among three separate but equal branches of the federal government, and would be further divided between the federal government and state governments. These arguments reflected Madison's belief that, "there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.""
| |
|
The Federalist Argument and the Bill of Rights, 2004.
Examines how the Anti-federalist versus Federalist argument is reflected in American political history documentation.
1,873 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Anti-federalist versus Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. The length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the Constitution was approved by the first congressional convention, to June of 1788, when Virginia was the first to ratify the Constitution of the United States. This paper shows, however, that the concepts, ideas, and standards that were set forth by both the Anti-federalists and the Federalists, as well as other, more moderate politicians, are expressed throughout the foundational documentation of the United States. The paper shows how, most notably, the Bill of Rights is a reflective example of the compromises and victories of both sides, but this can be seen elsewhere in other foundational documentation as well.
From the Paper
"Federalists, on the contrary, believed that a weak central government would be ineffective and useless in times of national need and could not stand independently to make decisions about national needs if constantly in conflict with state and local governmental entities. Yet, most importantly the anti-federalists were asking for careful examinations of not only motive but fact and future when decisions so serious were to be made."
| |
|
Anti-Federalists and the Constitutional Debate, 2006.
A review of the debate between the Federalists and Anti-federalists of the constitutional congress.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper summarizes the debate between the Federalists and Anti-federalists of the constitutional congress. It suggests some ongoing problems in American public life which demonstrate the main issues which drove that debate, far from being resolved during the constitution's ratification, continue to resonate in current events. This paper discusses the Ratification Debate and the major issues which drove the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists: Distribution of power, protection of rights, limitations of institutions and the ongoing Relevance.
From the Paper
"In the last few days of September in 1787, the Confederation Congress met to debate and construct a new Constitution of the United States. The document they wrote and sent for ratification to the thirteen states that made up the newly-formed country was intended to replace the Articles of Confederation that had ordered the nation since its inception. The nation was reaching a crisis point, as the experiment had been going poorly. Surprisingly, perhaps, the problem was not one of the many possible economic problems that new nations are likely to experience when reconstructing after a long and difficult war. As Gordon Wood (1969) argues, the general economy was running well and people felt comfortable and even prosperous (p. 395). Rather, the concerns that brought the nation's leading politicians together were primarily political. "
| |
|
"The Federalist Papers", 2002.
A look at the history and the purpose of "The Federalist Papers".
875 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 1 source, APA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the political history behind the Federalist, commonly referred to as "The Federalist Papers", a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, between October, 1787, and May, 1788. It discusses how "The Federalist Papers" were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. It analyzes how, because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, "The Federalist Papers" are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.
From the Paper
"For many years Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and the others to whom we owe our governmental system, wrestled with the idea of a unified central government charged with the country?s oversight. Their fear was that they might recreate a step-daughter of the oppressive monarchy which they sought to escape. The result of negotiating with this fear was the creation of government made up of a confederation of states. This approach was designed to permanently prohibit the creation of a government which could confuse the role of church, state, political organization, and matriarchal overlord. These lines had been blurred in the daily exercise of power by the governments on the European continent."
| |
|
Anti-Federalists, 2002.
A look at the arguments of the anti-federalists at the signing of the Constitution.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This three-page undergraduate paper discusses the arguments presented by the anti-federalists when the constitution was being ratified by member states. While some major states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania were highly in favor of the constitution, some other states were uncertain and they debated against it. These people were later called the anti-federalists and the articles they published against the constitution appeared in newspapers and are known as the 'Anti-Federalist Papers'.
| |
|
The Federalist Papers, 2004.
A look at the Federalist Papers, their history, their purpose, and their effect on American history.
1,895 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the Federalist Papers are some of the most important documents of American political history. It examines how each of the authors Jay, Hamilton, and Madison, have contributed unique ideas that have shaped the American government as we know it today. It discusses how the Federalist Papers include eighty-five individual essays, which explain in detail just why each element of government in the new Constitution was chosen and why it is the best thing to have. It also explores how not only do the Federalist Papers cover the institutions of the federal government, they also cover some of the issues that the new government is likely to face, such as hostility between the states, dangers from foreign force and influence, the Union as a safeguard against domestic and international troubles, the militia, and taxation.
From the Paper
"James Madison, in the Federalist Paper #10, talked about factions. According to Madison, factions are sown into the very fabric of the nature of mankind. Because we all have differing opinions, and a natural zeal for those opinions, we are susceptible to wanting to fight to promote those opinions. This, Madison points out, leads to faction. When society is divided into factions, the people in that society are much more likely to "vex and oppress each other" (Madison, Federalist #10). They will not likely work for the common good under these circumstances. While the rise of faction is something every society must deal with in some way or another, direct democracies are much more likely to experience the full scourge of factions than the representative democracy that the Constitution has created for the United States."
|
|
|
