1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of? 

In James Maddison’s Federalist Paper #10, it states that “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” (Maddison). Madison describes the term faction to signify a group of people in disagreement. These arguments were presumably not for the rights or wellbeing of the community but for those who held similar views. Each faction symbolizes different ideas that generally result in debate. This term is similar to what we would call a political party, therefore this is comparable to the lesson we had on ideology. Resembling factions, an ideology is a collection of beliefs and opinions of an individual or group of people that influences the world they live in. Ideology is also used to define the common interests and goals of a particular political party, as well as philosophies followed by a particular cultural group or religious background.  

2. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….” 

According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth through property ownership was due to “superior intelligence.” Naturally, intelligent people were able to gain their wealth through owning land, having a lucrative business, or anything that creates wealth due to the “faculties of men.” The faculties of men according to Madison is our capability to be intelligent human beings due to genetics or being born within a presumed “superior race.” In short there is a classist and discriminatory view on intelligence. The writers of Federalist #10 believed that those lucky to be born into a particular class of people were intelligent enough to figure out how to obtain wealth from the land they were provided with. Essentially there is a key difference between the intellectual ability of white people and black people, as well as poor white people and wealthy white people. People are poor because they were born that way and are intellectually inferior due to their genetics, or race. It is not within their nature to use their faculties to become rich. This gives the impression that the Founding Fathers are justifying slavery. This is because they found a way to use their property (slaves) to make money and thus thought of themselves as a more intelligent, talented, and superior human than the people they captured and turned into slaves.  

3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty? 

I do not agree with the explanation given by James Madison about wealth and poverty. A person’s level of intelligence has nothing to do with their genetics, race, or social class. There is no “superior race” who is more likely to obtain wealth. If intelligence is defined as the capability to apply knowledge, skill, and talent, then someone with a superior intellect can help them accumulate wealth. However, there are many people who are in the working class, who are educated and worked hard, only to find that their pay is average or even below average. Additionally, being smart does not protect someone from experiencing financial difficulties.  

Nevertheless, these racial disparities presented in Madison’s Federalist #10 still exist today because we live in a fundamentally racist society. Poor black and Latino people who possess intelligence are less likely to find success than white people who are poor and intelligent. People of color consistently experience discrimination in the housing market. Although several prejudiced and discriminatory laws were abolished by the end of the civil rights movement, they were soon replaced with more subtle methods. One example is that real estate agents deny black people the opportunity to purchase houses in affluent areas. Living in these locations would offer their children better education and more opportunities to expand their knowledge. Often real estate agents decline to show properties to black customers who happen to be more qualified than their white counterparts. They possess higher incomes and have more impressive credit scores, or more money in savings. Additionally, when black people are placed in subpar neighborhoods it gives them insufficient banking options which can lead to financial illiteracy. Most people start businesses by using home equity, and therefore, black businesses have less of a chance to take off due to their lack of homeownership and general wealth. In summary, racial biases are depriving black people of the opportunities to grow their wealth, limiting them from achieving their full potentials. James Maddison’s general idea of wealth and poverty still exists in the fibers of American society where black people are considered a minority faction.  

4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain. 

In Federalist #10, James Maddison affirms that “the protection of these faculties is the first object of government” (Maddison, Federalist #10). What I believe he means by this statement is that the first initial function of the government is to protect the wealth of the wealthy people in the United States, along with separating the intelligent from the less intelligent people. In essence, the first objective of the government is recognizing the fundamental differences between the social classes because those help indicate who is intelligent and who is not. This is another racist mission in Federalist #10 because it is about who is more or less skilled, talented, capable, and intelligent within society. This predominantly is the reason behind colonization and slavery because it was believed that people are naturally and intellectually unequal by birth. For example, when Maddison says “from the protection of the different and equal faculties” he means that this unequal society is acceptable because it is the natural way of things and is supposed to be protected.  

This is not surprising to me because even today society protects the wealthy, especially when it comes to the supreme court. Today, people with access to justice are the people who can pay their way to it. Those who are poor are treated worse than people who have great wealth, and people who do not have the finances remain in jail for months before their trial because they are not able to afford bail. A wealthy person can pay for their freedom, can even maintain their career, and prepare at home for their trial. Those who cannot afford to pay off their debt from court will likely have their licenses revoked, which causes a pattern of unemployment, homelessness, and other financial difficulties. The poor who have their licenses suspended are even more inconvenienced by not being able to take care of their children, look after their health by going to the doctor, are unable to go food shopping, or cannot commute to work. Without a driver’s license people are forced to pay for expensive forms of transpiration to take care of their basic needs. It is clear that the government, while protecting the rich, is keeping people stuck in a never-ending cycle of poverty. We have two separate justice systems, the one that safeguards the rich, and another one for those who are not so lucky.  

5. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes… 

I am not surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and rather supports a republican form of government. This is because a pure democracy is when the power is held by the people rather than through government representatives. Whereas a republican system of government is when the state is ruled by representatives of the state population. The United States can be defined as a republic simply due to the way we carry out elections. Each state is awarded a specific amount of votes due to the number of senators and representatives it has, two votes for the senators in the state, along with votes equivalent to those in its congressional districts. Not only does the electoral college chose the president, but the sitting president selects the Supreme Court Justices, and previously the senators were elected by their respective state legislatures. Therefore, this concludes that the United States is based more on a Republican government with state representatives than a pure democracy governed by the people.  

James Maddison would dislike a pure democracy because they did not want the poor man’s opinion to affect the laws that they implemented. He was a property-owning wealthy class citizen and felt that only the white, intelligent property-owning class were capable of making the proper decisions. They believed that if the poor unintelligent class had too much power, they would make decisions that were detrimental to the country. Most of the voting laws came with many restrictions that often required the voters to have a specific amount of property. Maddison and the other Founding Fathers believed that if someone were to vote on a particular matter that affected others’ wealth and property, they should also have a substantial amount of land to understand what it was like. It appears as if they were concerned for the safety and interest of the wealthy, wanted their fellow landowners to stay in control, and remain the superior race and class that dictated over everyone else.