Federalist #51
The author of this paper is either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison according to sources. While I can’t be certain, I will say that some of the writing style here does not seem to be consistent with paper #10, which is ascribed to Madison alone. In my opinion, portions of it were written primarily by Hamilton, perhaps in concert with Madison.
Paper #51 discusses the need for checks and balances in our government. It is written in an expository style of question and answer. It frames an idea, action, or problem that our government will need to address, then provides an action to be taken as a solution to said problem. Classic debate style, presenting a need for change argument as justification for a newly proposed action or program. This paper is easy to read as a result.
Its focus is a system of checks and balances needed for the proper operation of our government. In most cases the need for change argument is the danger that a person or department of our government may accrue too much power. The solution, of course, is a proper system of checks and balances designed to specifically impede such attempts.
It is a valiant attempt to locate and stop any entity from usurping power within the government. Such an effort to anticipate future problems will generally be incomplete since no one can foresee every possibility. This paper does a fine job of identifying major issues and their solutions.
From the paper:
“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”
“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.”
“But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. … The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack.”
They were aware of malevolent monarchies, and thus were concerned about the consolidation of power in any given agency of government. So, they built a government with different branches.
“In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.
The remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.”
It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions.
They sum up by them as follows.
“There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.
First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments.
In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.
The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
Recognizing their own differences of opinion, and the steadfastness with which they were held by each, they anticipated that society would also follow this behavior. Here’s their assessment of society, and how their new planned government was structured to handle it.
Again, they are only concerned with the danger that a majority faction of evil intent could impose its will on the minority faction(s). Echoing Federalist #10, and hence most likely written by Madison, the author dismisses the possibility that a minority faction could obtain power, by saying the majority can simply vote them out. Which at this point seems cutely naïve. Also, they thought that diversity of people would make the formation of an evil majority unlikely.
Also, from the paper.
“Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens.
If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.
The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority.
This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties.
The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States.
Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.”
Let me pull a couple of statements from the above quote to highlight.
“The first method prevails in all governments possessing a hereditary or self-appointed authority.”
“...the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself...”
They talk of a self-appointed authority, then drop the idea as if they’ve chosen a different fork in the road, and the matter is, therefore, settled.
Well, here we are, at a true fork in the road, and this time it’s not a thought experiment, like Madison’s musings in Federalist #51.
This time it’s real, and for keeps. With Project 2025 as their guidebook, and puppet Trump as executive, the GOP would destroy our democracy.
I, as well as others, have written a lot about Project 2025 and its perils, so let me reduce it all to this;
Nothing less than the fate of our democratic republic is on the ballot in November.
We know that win, or lose, Trump and the GOP will assault the election with claims of voter fraud and other lies. They’ve begun on right-wing media already.
Every vote matters. Help in any way you can.
Thanks for reading.
Bob
It’s easy to see how the idea that a minority wouldn’t prevail would be logical when you consider how many parties existed at the time the Federalist Papers were written, as well as the delays in communication. Just as we see a homogenizing influence in chain restaurants and stores, first in the US and now world wide, we see fewer parties with any chance to prevail. The founders also couldn’t foresee the effect of campaign contributions and while lobbying is nothing new and goes back to ancient times, it certainly is very different in scope and reach than seen hundreds and thousands of years ago.
I see several factors that contribute to the current crisis of minority rule that need to change:
- get rid of the electoral college. It’s outdated and based on the principal of restricting the vote
- ethics rules for federal judges need to have teeth and need to apply to Supreme Court justices
- expand the supreme court to match the number of circuit courts snd do away with lifetime appointments
- campaign finance reform needs to be revisited and shored up. As the late great Molly Ivins said, campaign finance reform will always be a work in progress and while those aren’t her exact words, that what she meant. One and done doesn’t work for this and I’d go so far as to say we need public campaign financing only but I know that will never fly.