The Federalist No. 10
The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
Thursday, November 22, 1787
To the People of the State of New York:
1. 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. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for [factional] character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to danger. He will not fail, therefore, to set a value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious [opposition]. The valuable improvements made by the American constitution on [traditional] models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually [obliterated] the danger [of faction] on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the [problems] under which we labor have been erroneously charged to the operation of our government; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of [government] and alarm for the protection of private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, the effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which factions have tainted our public administrations.
2. By a faction, I [am referring to] a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
3. There are two methods of curing the mischief of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
4. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
5. It could never be more truly that the first remedy was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to [democratic] political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
6. The second remedy is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love [human nature] his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach them. The diversity in the human nature of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an [insurmountable] obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these [rights] is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal [means] of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
7. The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to attack and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good (i.e. virtue). So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial [barrier] presents itself, the most frivolous distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and cause their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property (emphasis added-Scalia). Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct and opposing interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized (i.e. modern) nations, and divide them into different (socio-economic) classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary operations of the government.
8. No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal or greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? Are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
9. It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
10. The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. (Emphasis Scalia)
11. If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the dictates of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.
12. By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.
13. From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the danger of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
14. A republic, by which I mean a government in which [popular desires are presented through elected] representation, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend the nature of the cure.
15. 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.
16. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to factional considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice as pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the votes [of their constituents], and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or large republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public will; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
17. In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the factions of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.
18. In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the votes of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
19. It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with their entire local [constituents]; by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to local considerations and too little fit to pursue national objects. The federal Constitution forms a [workable] combination in this respect; the great interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
20. The other point of difference is the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican rather than democratic government; it is this circumstance which principally renders factions less to be dreaded in the former [republic] than in the latter [pure democracy]. The smaller the society, the fewer parties and interests composing it; the fewer the parties and interests, the more frequently a majority will be found of the same party. The smaller the number of individuals composing a majority the smaller the public arena within which they are placed, the more easily will they conspire and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, however, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to determine their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other faults it is true that where there are unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose participation and concurrence is necessary.
21. Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
22. The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of the country must secure the national legislatures against any danger from that source. 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 sickness is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.