StaggShire

I chose to expound upon Federalist No. 10 because it contains a concept which I found very simple but very enlightening. That concept is that Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dancers than smaller republics, for instance, the individual states. In taking AP US history in high school we learned about this stuff, but now that I’m smarter (I guess) I understand so much better how much the states were against each other and so concerned with their own interests rather than the common good of America. That’s why a few weeks ago, the name of our country, the UNITED States of America, hit home with me. It really was such a long and laborious accomplishment for these individual states to become united. Madison obviously need to put this Federalist Paper out there so that people would list to sence. I guess this is why Wikipedia reports, “Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy. In "The People's Vote," a popular survey conducted by the National Archives and Records Administration, National History Day, and U.S. News and World Report, No. 10 (along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history.” I love that Dr. Holzapfel has us read such relavent readings. Althought these Federalist papers weren’t the most enjoyable out of all our readings, I still read them knowing they weren’t just stupid papers that had nothing to do with our learning, and that knowledge helps me to appreciate the reading that I’m doing.

It is interesting to me that this Federalist paper indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for American politics to be partisan. I’ve been witness to many debates about this and read stuff on it and I’m still not sure what I think. I like the thought of voting for a person, not a party, for sure. I would like to be able to vote for someone based on their own individual views, not the views the party has for them. But then again, isn’t it human nature to organize thoughts and beliefs under a specific motto or name or creedo or whatever? Despite that, I do think that a no party system would be a good idea. There, I guess I just decided.
It looks like the Founding Fathers took human nature into account here though too. Yet again, Madison says, let us focus on the effects, because we can’t do anything about the causes of factions, because those are just human nature. Justica Clarence Thomas said, “The Framers (of the Constitution) preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive cure for faction htat the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy.” This remedy is liberty. This remedy is “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” I love this idea to because it seems so simple but I’m sure it was very revolutionary at the time. I really appreciate how he embraces diversity.

I also really like this line here, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” I wish I had read this back in my freshman year of high school. The principal of my school hit one of the teachers and threw something at his son (the teacher’s son, who also attended the school), and we had a trial for it, with the principal as judge! It was ridiculous! I wonder why those adults didn’t do anything about it. They should have brought up the Federalist Papers and been like “Behold, the wisdom of James Madison!”