In Federalist Papers #10, “The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” Madison uses the paper to warn against the power of factions to oppress the country and oppress the citizens. When he argues for the ratification of the Constitution, he demonstrates how the federal government can secure the rights of all under the Constitution, regardless of the pressure of factions, whether minority or majority. He points out the danger of factions in clear and concise language and proposes ways to eliminate the causes of factional beliefs, all of which are unacceptable. Madison advocates that the only way to eliminate factions is to hold the people accountable by reducing their voice within the political system.
Madison describes the danger of factions. He uses expressions such as “the adversaries of liberty” and “the superior force of the most zealous and arrogant party,” in order to surreptitiously position those factions as the enemies of the people who wish to be “virtuous and modest citizens.” The use of these words, when describing factions, prompts the reader to consider them as the evil few endeavoring to corrupt the rights of the greater good. It sets up a dichotomy of factions versus the people with direct references to loan holders and debtors and exiles and the landless. These spots of contention between people of age would have turned their opinion into a negative opinion. these various factions. This paper would be very persuasive, because those who read it would never want to think of themselves as a problem, seeing factions as “others” when they were probably parts of these groups. Madison was concerned with demonizing these gatherings of people to the extent that everyone would immediately consider the situation “us versus them” and want to fall into the role of good citizens.
In the paper, Madison proposes the theory that the only ways to solve the party’s harm are to remove the cause. parties or effects to control. In this argument, he asserts that the two sides of the party must be deprived of the freedoms that allow them to be parties, or that every citizen should feel the same. The former argument clearly states that liberties should be taken away against every opinion that the people have and likens it to banning air traffic to control fire. But this choice poses an obvious problem, because as humans we all want to have different opinions. By setting up solutions with such significantly opposite solutions, it leads the reader to believe that the only two solutions are conditions that would be intolerable for living. This provides them with a solution to curb the effects.
Madison states in the paper that if the only solution is to control the effects of factions, then the solution is to form a republic. In a democracy, the majority in the state, which goes against the common good of the people, can easily control the situation of their voters and suffer their sufferings. Madison points out that, within the republic of ambassadors, the area in which they serve would be large enough that they would never be likely to have such a majority. These representatives were elected to serve in large areas and therefore did not feel the need to bend their vote to the needs of a small group of people. He further asserts that by enlarging the size of the country that government cares, a variety of people will be in various interests. Because of this diversity, it is unlikely that a majority that is against the best interest of the people should come to power. In this Madison makes the most important argument for the Constitution’s political system, which will result in equality for all.
In this paper, the Federalist Madison demonstrated his sharpest skills of persuasion. He defined the problem, demonstrated the ineffectiveness of general solutions, and established the Constitution as the only proper solution. He was also careful not to leave too much power in the hands of the larger states, to the local states. This argument was extremely powerful and likely had a significant effect on the reader. He outlined the problem in an exceptionally coercive manner, eliminating several solutions and then proposing a solution to be chosen.
