Le Saboteur
Active member
Two further points:
1.) Hamilton and Adams (Madison, too) were diametrically opposed to Jefferson. The refinement of a representative democracy, as opposed to the mob rule of direct democracy, was a direct check on the sovereignty of the people.
Madison described the effects of "refinement" on the public views this way:
"The effect of the first difference [i.e., between direct democracy and a representative republic] 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 temporary or partial considerations. (Federalist No. 10)
Generations of scholars and students either forgot this central point, or willfully neglected it. Fortunately more modern scholarship has remembered it.
Gordon Wood: "Madison did not expect public policy or the common good to emerge naturally from the give-and-take of hosts and competing interests. Instead Madison hoped that in an enlarged national republic these competing factions and interests would, like America's many religious denominations, neutralize themselves. This in turn would allow enlightened and rational men, men like himself, to promote the public good. Madison did not expect the new national government to be an integrator and harmonizer of the many different interests in the society; instead he wanted it to be a "disinterested and dispassionate umpire" in disputes among these different interests and parties."
2.) Madison also spoke about the need to pay attention to the judgments of
foreign countries. Especially were those were more rational than American attitudes:
"An attitude to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is, that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy: The second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world, may be the best guide that can be followed." (Federalist No. 63, emphasis added)
The Founding Fathers were not a homogeneous unit. They surrendered their personal interests to the greater good of the country.
1.) Hamilton and Adams (Madison, too) were diametrically opposed to Jefferson. The refinement of a representative democracy, as opposed to the mob rule of direct democracy, was a direct check on the sovereignty of the people.
Madison described the effects of "refinement" on the public views this way:
"The effect of the first difference [i.e., between direct democracy and a representative republic] 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 temporary or partial considerations. (Federalist No. 10)
Generations of scholars and students either forgot this central point, or willfully neglected it. Fortunately more modern scholarship has remembered it.
Gordon Wood: "Madison did not expect public policy or the common good to emerge naturally from the give-and-take of hosts and competing interests. Instead Madison hoped that in an enlarged national republic these competing factions and interests would, like America's many religious denominations, neutralize themselves. This in turn would allow enlightened and rational men, men like himself, to promote the public good. Madison did not expect the new national government to be an integrator and harmonizer of the many different interests in the society; instead he wanted it to be a "disinterested and dispassionate umpire" in disputes among these different interests and parties."
2.) Madison also spoke about the need to pay attention to the judgments of
foreign countries. Especially were those were more rational than American attitudes:
"An attitude to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is, that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy: The second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world, may be the best guide that can be followed." (Federalist No. 63, emphasis added)
The Founding Fathers were not a homogeneous unit. They surrendered their personal interests to the greater good of the country.
Last edited: