James Madison took these concerns, and addressed them in Federalist 10. He argued that a large republic wouldn’t limit liberty or promote tyranny, and that the people would be fully represented. Madison’s first argument was that it was nearly impossible for the government to become a superpower. The Constitution had built in “fail-safes” for the government, and it was difficult to gain enough power to be despotic. One of those fail-safes was the principle of limited government. Limited government restricted the federal government to what was written in the Constitution. One of the major limits being that the government was split into three branches, preventing a singular powerful block of federal government. Another was checks and balances.
…show more content…
He assented to the fact that too little and too many representatives would be a detriment to the United States, but he also thought that large republics were ideal to electing the delegates that would be the most concerned with the public good. There will be a greater number of options from which to choose. Furthermore he put forth that in a large republic the sheer number of voters would make it incredibly unlikely that an undesirable leader would be elected. The leader would be unable to fool a majority of the voters and therefore would not be placed into power. A large republic would also help to combat factions, groups of people with passions in opposition to public or individual rights. The smaller the republic the greater the probability there would only be a few parties to choose from. With a number of people, there would be a solid chance of multiple factions. The majority would not be in a single faction, lessening the possibility that they could strong-arm their way into authority. This way the minority could not be oppressed simply because they lacked the man-power. Additionally, since there were so many voters, the prospective candidates were much more likely to be qualified to speak on behalf of the people. If so many voted for them, then the delegate must be …show more content…
They had a multitude of points that were beneficial to the United States in the long run. For example, because of the Anti-Federalists, the Constitution was outfitted with a Bill of Rights shortly after it was ratified. There were also a variety of other topics that were not addressed in Federalist 10, such as whether or not a uniform code of laws could be applied to an area as diverse as the United States, if a republic could be that large and not be corrupt, and if the republic would thrive having a leader that was not intimately known, without military interference. The Anti-Federalists should not be labeled as the automatic villains who were completely wrong about everything. They were just people concerned for their country, and the supposed attacks to their liberty. James Madison was just able to disprove their claims well enough that people voted to ratify the Constitution. His points were valid, they made sense, and they proved that a large-scale republic would be sustainable. Apart from a few bumps along the way, his claim has stayed true, the republic still exists more than one hundred years
He assented to the fact that too little and too many representatives would be a detriment to the United States, but he also thought that large republics were ideal to electing the delegates that would be the most concerned with the public good. There will be a greater number of options from which to choose. Furthermore he put forth that in a large republic the sheer number of voters would make it incredibly unlikely that an undesirable leader would be elected. The leader would be unable to fool a majority of the voters and therefore would not be placed into power. A large republic would also help to combat factions, groups of people with passions in opposition to public or individual rights. The smaller the republic the greater the probability there would only be a few parties to choose from. With a number of people, there would be a solid chance of multiple factions. The majority would not be in a single faction, lessening the possibility that they could strong-arm their way into authority. This way the minority could not be oppressed simply because they lacked the man-power. Additionally, since there were so many voters, the prospective candidates were much more likely to be qualified to speak on behalf of the people. If so many voted for them, then the delegate must be …show more content…
They had a multitude of points that were beneficial to the United States in the long run. For example, because of the Anti-Federalists, the Constitution was outfitted with a Bill of Rights shortly after it was ratified. There were also a variety of other topics that were not addressed in Federalist 10, such as whether or not a uniform code of laws could be applied to an area as diverse as the United States, if a republic could be that large and not be corrupt, and if the republic would thrive having a leader that was not intimately known, without military interference. The Anti-Federalists should not be labeled as the automatic villains who were completely wrong about everything. They were just people concerned for their country, and the supposed attacks to their liberty. James Madison was just able to disprove their claims well enough that people voted to ratify the Constitution. His points were valid, they made sense, and they proved that a large-scale republic would be sustainable. Apart from a few bumps along the way, his claim has stayed true, the republic still exists more than one hundred years