The Birth of a Republican form of Government

"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 suffrages 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."

"By a faction, I understand 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, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

This is an important quote that comes from the Federalist Papers written under the pseudonym of Publius (John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison). This section represents a key argument that many people have against the ideals of democracy. What do all dictators and kings have in common? They rule because they feel they are the best suited for the job. Not every man has the experience, education, and will to control an entire country and therefore as a ruler you need to be a leader. By definition of democracy then can it be said that the people could elect someone who is in no way qualified to lead a country. This is where the argument lies. In a Republic citizens can potential elect whoever they want even someone who is not qualified for the job. However, to defend the stance in the Federalist papers an interesting point is made. It will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success because elections are carried often. Therefore, if someone is elected to power who is not suited for the job it becomes evident after a while that he will no longer be elected again. This sets a check on the idea that people can choose who they want to elect and if that person does not suit the wishes of the people that chose him soon another election will be held and the incumbent would be ousted from his position. Another point that is made which is somewhat different is that. Since people can elect freely whoever they want they will pick the best of men. One who has the most merits and is a very established character. Publius argues that since people are not under a dictatorship or a monarchy then they will use there authority to pick the best suited candidate for the job. Though this may not be an accurate statement as much now where all candidates are qualified during the birth of our nation it was important to pick the right person. Therefore through the freedom to choose people would most certainly decide to pick a candidate that they felt would be the best at the job and for no other reason. These two ideas cleared much of the controversy around the new form of government that was erupting in the Americas. The second quote truly reinforces the first by saying that in our nation all that will be done to better it comes from the impulse of passion to help it grow and become powerful. This is why we will fight for our rights because it is something we earned and something we will continue to fight for until we achieve our goals.

"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."

This is a a different way of thinking of the idea of weakness in government. Here it says that factions that do not work should be removed. This is very forward thinking and was a philosophy that was not practiced as much during this general historic period. The new nation was known to be incredibly liberal in their ideas of trying new things to help benefit the country. Unlike in Europe where they had feudal states for a thousand years America realized when its government was having an issue and therefore acted upon that to better itself as a nation. For example, if there was a branch of government that did not check the other branches or was in some way weaker or more powerful, it would be removed or it would be more harshly controlled. This could be done by establishing heavy checks and balances onto it and making it more centralized. Basically rather two abandoning ideas or enforcing them America went through the process of developing its nation and helping it become more powerful and more successful.

"It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal."


This quote demonstrates an important aspect of the creation of the American republic. Since the nation did not have one authority that controlled everything it was necessary to create different departments that had jurisdiction over different aspects of the society. This is how the different branches of government were formed. These included the executive, judicial, and legislature. These different branches controlled different aspects of government. The quote above states that the different branches of government should in no way depend on each other because that would be mixing different forms of politics. Legislature makes the laws and the judicial branch enforces them. If both could do both duties it would not be affective. Therefore the different branches should have little or no dependance on one another. The idea of separating the different branches goes back to Montesqueu's idea of creating a government with three separate branches that can act together yet are not related in making decisions. This idea of three branch system has been adopted by many countries and is used around the world. The question that I have regarding it is, is it necessary to have a three branch government or would we be better off or our government to be a one body entity? What do you guys think?