Taikiem Jennings: The views on Federalist #10 

  1. Faction reminds me of social classes and how depending on the social class that you are a part of plays a role into how you are viewed in society. The reason for this is because in Federalist Paper #10, They believe that a number of citizens or whether it be a majority or a minority of people. In social class we see the same views, we have the upper class and the lower and working classes. 
  2. The source of wealth (private property) is seen as the diversity between the faculties of men from which their rights of property originate and it’s not a less insuperable obstacle to a form of interests. A factor that plays into why some stay in a position of wealth and others stay poor is how the factions or social classes at this time play a role. What I mean by this is that those who are born into wealth and money will continue to pass this onto their offspring and so on. As with a woman for example she may be born into wealth that does not change the fact that she can’t be considered a part of the wealthy property owners at this time because of her gender. 
  3. I disagree with the idea that wealth and property come from because in this type of viewing you are unable to obtain a higher status based on gender, if you are a white male that is born poor, or someone of African descent. These groups of people are considered a part of the disenfranchised class which does not give them much of a chance to make their lives better.  
  4. The core mission of the U.S government is to keep the fractions the way that they are, and secondly make sure that democracy doesn’t take over. I am not shocked by this because till this day we have people that work in politics that believe that democracy is bringing the government down. They believe that if they allow democracy to take over all the hard work that they have put in will mess up the ideas that they feel the way the government should be run. This does sound like today because certain republicans believe that women should not be in positions of power. And even if they are, they believe that the government should be run by rich old white men. They feel that only certain classes and groups of people should be able to vote. 
  5. I am not surprised that this article is in support of a republican(representative) form of government. The reason why the author disagrees with a (pure) democratic form of government is because if all social classes were able to take part in a government they believe that it would be pure madness. Their view on a pure democracy would consist of a society of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer their own government in person and can admit that there would be any problems with the factions. But in the eyes of a republic government there would be schemes of representation taking place, a different prospect and the promises for what they believe in. So to them with a democratic government that allows all of its citizens or social classes to take apart it would be pure madness. Nothing would get done and the government would soon fall apart. But with a Republican society things would be in order and things would get done. 

Discussion 6.2

  1. “Faction” is the number of people whether it be the majority or minority who have certain commonalities and stick together to promote and protect their interests. Factions reminds me of the government that we have today and the past topics of the working class and the capitalist who are able to stay wealthy. It reminds me have how the capitalist who are the 1% and the amount of power they have in not only maintaining their power and wealth but making sure that it stays generational.
  2. According to the Federalist #10 the source of wealth (private property) is the unequal distribution of property and maintaining the factions or making sure that the country’s interest comes before those who have their own self interest. Those who are in a position to make laws will continue to stay wealthy because those laws are best suited for them and not those who are poor. The poor will remain poor because there is always that threat of the government that will continue to restrict them from gaining wealth.
  3. This explanation of wealth and poverty is correct and I do agree with it. It very evident in today’s society in how the governments works in protection liberty and those who have property. Those who are in the working class are staying a the threshold that keeps them at the very social class that they started at.
  4. The core mission of the government was to keep properties and wealth were it is at and continue to protect those who have property. Those who are born in the class that already have wealth and property will continue to be in that class. The governments mission is also to protect liberty and to protect the republic over democracy.
  5. I am not surprised that the Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy and supports a republican form of government. The government even in today’s society is about looking at factions as problematic, and seeing democracy as a threat. A strong government can protect liberty and find ways to eliminate factions which is inevitable because as its states in Federalist #10 “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”

Belinda Hinckley-Discussion Board 6.2

  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.  

  1. 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.  

  1. 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.  

  1. 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.  

  1. 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. 

Tristan Flinn 6.2

  1. What does faction remind me of… I would say social classes, class hierarchy, and political groups. 
  2. Faculties are mental or physical abilites thatbelong to people, unique talents, this then is protected by the government. I think Madison is saying it depends on who you are and how you handle business with higher uppers that makes or breaks a successful wealth owner. 
  3. Ill be honest, James Madison has too many words on the page for me to fully understand what he is getting at, but it sounds very logical he basically is saying money comes from working, or from owning property but not everyone has the opportunity to benefit from owning property.  It also depends on what kind of property it is, how you got that property, and what you do with that property. 
  4. To divide its power so all is equal for its citizens. I believe we have forgotten what we were originally trying to make when we tried building this country the first time, now in democratic and republican parties there is corruption, there is also corruption in just about every area that has been given power. The Government does not truly care for us as it once did. We can see this in the poverty rate, how the police handle things, their handling of climate change, school shootings and how we handle them despite many signs their are some messed up children attending schools across america. Thats just off the top of my head.  
  5. I am only sort of surprised, Since weve been studying these documents for years ( you usually study them in highschool depending the class) I think because I am older I have more of an attention to detail. But being republican in this time wasn’t rare, its actually a very popular belief and it isn’t exactly like being a republican today. The author would dislike a democratic party because that would give the lower class a bigger power, in a democratic world you have the citizens make or be part of bigger situations, where as a republican does whats best for everyone. And at this time they would sport this more, wealth owners prefer it(Madison and all the founding fathers) as well as other important members of society at this time.

DB 6.2 – Jordi Rosario

  1. Faction reminds of the concept of the social class hierarchy. The upper, middle and lower class can all be considered as different factions altogether.
  2. According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth is is the distribution of private property itself. Additionally, the factor that determined who got to possess wealth was mainly inheritance and being born into a rich family who were mostly if not only white families. Those who remained poor were of a different race that was not white.
  3. I agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty because it is accurate with the way society holds up today.
  4. The core mission or “first object” of the US government is “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” “The Diversity in the faculties of men”. “The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.” as stated by James Madison. This does not surprise me as our society today is the direct offspring of these statements. Today the US government is built upon the foundation of republican principles, those which honor freedom of speech for everyone, not just rich and white males.
  5. I am not surprised that federalist g #10 is not in favor of democracy given the circumstances of the time that is being lived in. The author James Madison dislikes the democratic form of government because he is wealthy and a member of the upper class. Therefore a democratic form of government would not benefit his capitalistic form of endeavors.

Discussion Board 6.2


  1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?
  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….”
  3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?
  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.
  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 d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…