founding principles: representative government...

© The Bill of Rights Institute

FOUNDINGPRINCIPLESCOURSE RepresentativeGovernmentModule

Founding Principles: Representative Government Module

Representative government: Form of government where sovereignty lies with individuals who authorize government action via representatives.

Lesson One: What is Representative Government, and How Does it Protect Freedom?

OverviewThe Founders believed that republican (or representative) government, the form of government in which the people are sovereign and authorize representatives to make and carry out laws, was the best option for the new nation. However, in practice, they knew that majorities could be just as tyrannical as a king. This lesson explores the reasons the Founders believed that republican government would correct the defects associated with majority-rule systems, and how the Constitution protected against mob rule.

Recommended Time120 minutes

ObjectivesExplain how representative government protects freedom.Compare the British and American political systems.Evaluate the concept of majority rule.Appraise the significance of the right to vote and fair and frequent elections.Understand that the continuation of the system of republican government is dependent on the American people.

North Carolina Clarifying ObjectivesCE.C&G.1.1: Explain how the tensions over power and authority led America’s founding fathers to develop a constitutional democracy (e.g., mercantilism, salutary neglect, taxation and representation, boycott and protest, independence, American Revolution, Articles of Confederation, Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Sons of Liberty, etc.).

CE.C&G.1.3: Evaluate how debates on power and authority between Federalists and Anti-Federalists have helped shape government in the United States over time (e.g., Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Federalist Papers, strong central government, protection of individual rights, Elastic Clause, Bill of Rights, etc.).

CE.C&G.1.4:Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights –life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).

CE.C&G.1.5: Evaluate the fundamental principles of American politics in terms



of the extent to which they have been used effectively to maintain constitutional democracy in the United States (e.g., rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, etc.).

CE.C&G.2.1: Analyze the structures of national, state and local governments in terms of ways they are organized to maintain order, security, welfare of the public and the protection of citizens (e.g., federalism, the three branches, court system, jurisdictions, judicial process, agencies, etc.).

CE.C&G.2.5: Compare United States system of government within the framework of the federal and state structures as well as in how they relate with governmental systems of other nations (e.g., Republicanism, federalism).

CE.C&G.4.1: Compare citizenship in the American constitutional democracy to membership in other types of governments (e.g., right to privacy, civil rights, responsibilities, political rights, right to due process, equal protection under the law, participation, freedom, etc.).

AH1.H.1.2: Use Historical Comprehension to: 1. Reconstruct the literal meaning of a historical passage. 2. Differentiate between historical facts and historical interpretations. 3. Analyze data in historical maps. 4. Analyze visual, literary and musical sources.

AH1.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to: 1. Identify issues and problems in the past. 2. Consider multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past. 3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships and multiple causation. 4. Evaluate competing historical narratives and debates

among historians. 5. Evaluate the influence of the past on contemporary issues.

AH1.H.1.4: Use Historical Research to: 1. Formulate historical questions. 2. Obtain historical data from a variety of sources. 3. Support interpretations with historical evidence. 4. Construct analytical essays using historical evidence to support arguments.

AH1.H.4.1: Analyze the political issues and conflicts that impacted the United States through Reconstruction and the compromises that resulted (e.g., American Revolution, Constitutional Convention, Bill of Rights, development of political parties, nullification, slavery, states’ rights, Civil War).

AH1.H.5.1: Summarize how the philosophical, ideological and/or religious views on freedom and equality contributed to the development of American political and economic systems through Reconstruction (e.g., natural rights, First Great Awakening, Declaration of Independence, transcendentalism, suffrage, abolition, “slavery as a peculiar institution”, etc.).

Lesson Two: Representative Government and Faction

OverviewThe Founders believed that a representative government would be able to take the will of the people and turn it into policy and laws; however, they were aware that there were many obstacles they had to overcome to make a functioning representative system. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison – writing under the pseudonym Publius – responded to common critiques of republican governance,



and demonstrated how a representative government with a strong federal system would be able to effectively operate.


ObjectivesEvaluate how a representative government would handle selfish factions.

Explain why Madison thought a big republican government would work better than a small one.

Critically engage with this theory.

Understand how good republican governance is tied to the overall structure of government.



CE.C&G.1.4: Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in

terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights –life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).

CE.C&G.1.5: Evaluate the fundamental principles of American politics in terms of the extent to which they have been used effectively to maintain constitutional democracy in the United States (e.g., rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, etc.).


CE.C&G.3.6: Explain ways laws have been influenced by political parties, constituents, interest groups, lobbyists, the media and public opinion (e.g., extension of suffrage, labor legislation, civil rights legislation, military policy, environmental legislation, business regulation and educational policy).

CE.C&G.4.3: Analyze the roles of citizens of North Carolina and the United States in terms of responsibilities, participation, civic life and criteria for membership or admission (e.g., voting, jury duty, lobbying, interacting successfully with government agencies, organizing and working in civic groups, volunteering, petitioning, picketing, running for political office, residency, etc.)



Revolution, Constitutional Convention, Bill of Rights, development of political parties, nullification, slavery, states’ rights, Civil War).

Assessment

OverviewStudents will evaluate how a representative government balances the desires of the citizenry with the judgment of elected representatives.


Assignment“A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.” - Edmund Burke

The Founders believed that a representative government would empower those with the knowledge and skills necessary to lead; however, there is a constant tension between the desires of the public and the desires of an individual representative. Students should analyze and respond critically to the questions/prompts below:

How do frequent and fair elections ensure that representatives are pursuing the public’s interest and not their own?

Provide a theoretical example where the interests of a representative don’t align with those of the public. What can be done to prevent this type of scenario?

If a representative doesn’t sacrifice his judgment for the public’s opinion (as Edmund Burke put it) he/she is liable to be

CE.C&G.4.4: Analyze the obligations of citizens by determining when their personal desires, interests and involvement are subordinate to the good of the nation or state (e.g., Patriot Act, Homeland Security, sedition, civil rights, equal rights under the law, jury duty, Selective Services Act, rule of law, eminent domain, etc.).


AH1.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to: 1. Identify issues and problems in the past. 2. Consider multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past. 3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships and multiple causation. 4. Evaluate competing historical narratives and debates among historians. 5. Evaluate the influence of the past on contemporary issues.

AH1.H.2.1: Analyze key political, economic, and social turning points from colonization through Reconstruction in terms of causes and effects (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.)

AH1.H.2.2: Evaluate key turning points from colonization through Reconstruction in terms of their lasting impact (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH1.H.4.1: Analyze the political issues and conflicts that impacted the United States through Reconstruction and the compromises that resulted (e.g., American



voted out of office. Does this undermine representative government? How did the Founders seek to remedy this problem?

In your opinion is it more important for a representative to do what the people want or what he thinks is best? Justify your answer. What did the Founders think?

An informed electorate is crucial to ensure that the interests and desires of the people and their representatives stay aligned. How should we ensure there is an informed electorate? Justify your answer.

These resources were created by the Bill of Rights Institute to help North Carolina high school teachers of civics and American History meet the requirements of the Founding Principles Act.



Representative Government Module: What is Representative Government, and

How Does it Protect Freedom? Lesson

OverviewThe Founders believed that republican (or representative) government, the form of government in which the people are sovereign and authorize representatives to make and carry out laws, was the best option for the new nation. However, in practice, they knew that majorities could be just as tyrannical as a king. This lesson explores the reasons the Founders believed that republican government would correct the defects associated with majority-rulesystems, and how the Constitution protected against mob rule.


ObjectivesExplain how representative government protects freedom.Compare the British and American political systems.Evaluate the concept of majority rule.Appraise the significance of the right to vote and fair and frequent elections.Understand that the continuation of the system of republican government is dependent on the American people.



CE.C&G.1.4: Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights –life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).





CE.C&G.2.5: Compare United States system of government within the framework of the federal and state structures as well as in how they relate with governmental systems of other nations (e.g., Republicanism, federalism).

CE.C&G.4.1: Compare citizenship in the American constitutional democracy to membership in other types of governments (e.g., right to privacy, civil rights, responsibilities, political rights, right to due process, equal protection under the law, participation, freedom, etc.).


AH1.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to: 1. Identify issues and problems in the past. 2. Consider multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past. 3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships and multiple causation. 4. Evaluate competing historical narratives and debates among historians. 5. Evaluate the influence of the past on contemporary issues.

AH1.H.1.4: Use Historical Research to: 1. Formulate historical questions. 2. Obtain historical data from a variety of sources.

3. Support interpretations with historical evidence. 4. Construct analytical essays using historical evidence to support arguments.

H1.H.4.1: Analyze the political issues and conflicts that impacted the United States through Reconstruction and the compromises that resulted (e.g., American Revolution, Constitutional Convention, Bill of Rights, development of political parties, nullification, slavery, states’ rights, Civil War).

AH1.H.5.1: Summarize how the philosophical, ideological and/or religious views on freedom and equality contributed to the development of American political and economic systems through Reconstruction (e.g., natural rights, First Great Awakening, Declaration of Independence, transcendentalism, suffrage, abolition, “slavery as a peculiar institution”, etc.).

MaterialsHandout A: Focus QuotationsHandout B: Republican Government EssayHandout C: Constitutional Principle: Representative Government Viewing GuideHandout D: Principles in Cartoons

Day I Lesson Plan

Warm-up/Pre-assessment [15 minutes] A. Begin the lesson by asking students to work

with a partner or two. They should imagine they are creating a new government, and begin to make some rules or laws for their new society. Give students a few minutes to craft some rules.



B. Ask a few volunteers to share some of the rules they came up with. After a few examples, ask students if anyone came up with a “rule for the rules.” In other words, did any groups come up with a framework for making laws and rules?

C. Explain that such a meta-rule is the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee a republican (or representative) form of government to each state. In addition, the Constitution establishes that powers not given to Congress remain with the states and the people. Some (not all) of the limits on government are spelled out in the Bill of Rights

Activity: Readings and Documents [30 minutes] A. Distribute Handout A: Focus Quotations

and have students complete it individually or in pairs. Call students’ attention to the fact that statement #5 on Handout A is a loose paraphrase of the Washington quote

B. Have students read Handout B: Republican Government Essay and discuss how the rules and frameworks they created in the warm up are linked to the idea of representative government. Point out that the rules they created emerged from the people, but also serve as a curb on the people.

Wrap-Up [20 minutes]A. Before wrapping up for the day, remind

students that representation has been achieved throughout American history through voting. The history of the suffrage amendments demonstrates that the principle of representative government

is achieved through fair and frequent elections. For homework, students should use their history or government textbooks, and/or sources available at www.BillofRightsInstitute.org or other online sources to find a quotation from an individual who worked in support of one of the following: a. 15th Amendment b. 19th Amendment c. 24th Amendment d. Voting Rights Act (1965) e. 26th Amendment

Day II Lesson Plan

Warm-up [15 minutes]A. Have a few students share the quotations

they located for homework. As a class, discuss any themes that emerge in the quotations. As a large group, discuss the following questions:

a. Why has the right to vote been so treasured throughout American history?

b. In what ways is the U.S. based on the principle of majority rule?

c. In what ways is it based on the idea that there are some things no majority can do?

Activity: Multi-Media Resource [30 minutes] A. Have students watch the video

Constitutional Principle: Representative Government and complete the Handout C:Constitutional Principle: Representative Government Viewing Guide. The video can be found here: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/student-resources/constitutional-principles-videos/.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/student-resources/constitutional-principles-videos/.





B. After students complete the viewing guide, conduct a large group discussion to answer the question: Were the Founders wise to avoid a direct democracy? Why or why not?

Wrap-up: Journaling [10 minutes] A. Call students’ attention to the Washington

quotation on Handout B. Students should write a journal response to two questions: First, what are some ways that the principle

of republican government affects you as an American? Second, is it still true that the future success of representative (or republican) government is entrusted to the American people? If so, what is your role in ensuring its success?

Assessment A. Have students complete Handout D:

Principles in Cartoons.

B. Rubric for Handout D.

1 2 3 4

Visual Representation

Cartoon does not represent the statement.

Cartoon somewhat represents the statement.

Cartoon represents the statement, but it lacks imagination.

Cartoon represents the statement imaginatively.

Themes Cartoon fails to convey the intent or statement.

Cartoon conveys some of the intent or literal meaning of the statement.

Cartoon expresses the literal intent OR the figurative meaning of the statement.

Cartoon expresses the literal intent as well as the figurative meaning of the statement.

Questions Student fails to answer the questions correctly.

Student answers some of the questions correctly.

Student answers the questions by applying what they leaned from the lesson.

Student answers the questions correctly, applies what they have learned from the lesson, and includes their own interpretations.


Handout A: Focus Quotations

Directions: Choose one quotation and write a concise paraphrase. Then answer the questions that follow.

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” – Thomas Jefferson

“We may define a republic to be…a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.” – James Madison, 1787

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” - George Washington, 1789

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Eternally: forever Derives: obtains Destiny: a pre-determined course of events Staked: invested in and dependent on

Questions to Consider1. In his definition of a republic, why does Madison note that representatives hold office for limited

times or during good behavior?

2. On whom does the responsibility for the success of America depend, according to Washington?


Handout B: Republican Government Essay

As Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, a woman approached and asked him what form of government the Convention had produced. Franklin responded, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

If you asked the average American today the question posed to Franklin - what type of government do we have? – odds are the answer would be “a democracy,” and not “a republic.” This language of democracy is reinforced in the rhetoric of public officials and within the media, and much of American society currently sees no difference between the two. Our Founders, however, did. In fact, many of the Founders, such as James Madison, were suspicious of that which modern Americans seemingly embrace: “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; [are] incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (Federalist No. 10)

Democracy is self-government through popular sovereignty, based on the principle of majority rule. Simply put, the people rule, and what more than half of the people want is what will be. A challenge, though, has long plagued the very concept of democracy: how can the principles of popular sovereignty be implemented in a manner that also provides for a stable society and preserves the rights and liberties of all?

The unique American answer to this vexing question has partial roots in an ancient source.

Examining the various types of government that existed throughout the world during his time, Greek philosopher Aristotle classified them into three categories: rule by one (monarchy), rule by a few (aristocracy) and rule by the many (democracy). He noted that while all three types began their rule in what he called their “good form,” - ruling on the basis of the common good – all three have a tendency to degenerate into their “bad form,” in which the one, the few, or the many rule on the basis of self interest. Monarchies devolve to tyranny, aristocracies to oligarchy, and democracies to mob rule. To Aristotle, the best form of government blended all three types into a “mixed regime.” This mixed regime would combine the best features of each and counterbalance their excesses and tendency to devolve.

Aristotle’s mixed regime, which allowed for - indeed advocated – both monarchy and aristocracy, took hold in some European countries by the 1600s. This was most notably true in England, where the King, House of Lords and the House of Commons shared governmental power. Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Montesquieu, however, challenged vigorously the notion that either monarchy or aristocracy were compatible with self-government. Locke’s natural rights theory, in particular, was premised upon the idea that all men are created equal, born with rights bestowed by God, not man. Further, Locke argued that the very purpose of government was to protect these rights, and that all government must be by consent of the governed.


Locke did not rule out the possibility of some kind of constitutional monarchy. However, absent an effective process to establish consent of the governed, he viewed both rule by a king, and by an aristocratic elite, as invalid. This reasoning reflected doubt upon the legitimacy of Aristotle’s rule by one and rule by a few. All power, in Locke’s view, must be held by the many.

Pure democracy, however, has long been as mistrusted as monarchy or aristocracy with respect to the safety of liberty. Imagine, for example, a scenario in which - if left to majority rule - perfectly law abiding American Muslim men retained any rights at all in the immediate aftermath of September 11th , or the trial and punishment of a heinous criminal, if left to a simple vote of the community.

An alternative was needed to preserve the power of the many, but curb the excesses of majority rule. The answer was to be found in republican government, and for over a century various Enlightenment philosophers debated the particular elements and structures that were required, as well as the very nature of human liberty and the purpose of government itself.

What, then, is a republic? A republican government is one in which the people – directly or indirectly - are the ultimate source of authority, electing representatives to make laws that serve their interests and advance the common good. A republic, however, also limits the power of the majority through a constitutional framework that promotes competent government, and affords protections of fundamental rights.

Theoretical republicanism would get its first genuine test in the founding of America.

Our Founders sought to implement a form of democratic republicanism, not a pure democracy, through our Constitution.

The most basic feature of the American constitutional republic is the selection of representatives directly or indirectly by the people throughout all three branches of government, preserving the philosophy that all power must flow from the people. While the direct election of representatives is reserved only for Congress, Americans indirectly choose our president (via an electoral college) and all federal judges (via presidential appointment and approval of Senators, all of whom are chosen by the people, directly or indirectly). Rule by the many is preserved, as regular elections ensure the people maintain a constant voice in their government and remain the source of legitimate power.

Further, each branch represents distinctly different interests and is given specific powers to this end. The legislative branch, for example, is intended to represent citizens (House of Representatives) and the state in which they reside (Senate), and is given the power to make law, raise taxes, declare war, and regulate commerce. The executive branch is designed to represent the interests of the nation, and as such is given the power to veto legislation, make treaties, and appoint ambassadors. Lastly, the purpose of the judicial branch is to administer justice and interpret the law in criminal cases and civil cases. While not originally in the Constitution, the concept of judicial review, established by the case Marbury v. Madison (1803), allowed the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches. This functional separation of powers is reinforced through


a complex system of checks and balances that allows each branch to limit the reach and authority of the others, serving to limit both majority rule and the power of the government itself.

The Bill of Rights provides perhaps the clearest example of the dichotomy between a democracy and a republic. It is simultaneously the most celebrated feature of our “democracy” and the most anti-democratic feature of our constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights carves out specific liberties that are off-limits from the reach of “the people,” unless the Constitution itself is further amended. The Bill of Rights includes both natural rights, such as freedom of conscience, and civil rights, such as protection against arbitrary search and seizure. No matter how large the majority, one’s right to practice the religion of choice, or to be free from arbitrary search by government officials, cannot be abridged or simply voted away.

Oddly, a key feature of America’s constitutional republic also happens to run entirely counter to what many Enlightenment philosophers theorized was a necessary precondition for republican government: a small territory. Montesquieu, for example, argued:

It is natural for a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise it cannot long subsist…In an extensive republic the public good is sacrificed to a thousand private views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is more obvious, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have less extent, and, of course, are less protected. (Spirit of the Laws)

In short, conventional wisdom at the time of America’s founding was that only a geographically small republic could provide competent self-government that protected liberty. Our Constitution, however, crafted the very “extensive republic” against which Montesquieu cautioned.

James Madison would turn the small-territory theoretical republicanism of the Enlightenment on its head in Federalist No. 10. In this essay, he argued that in any free society people would naturally come together in groups to pursue common interests. While all interest groups pursued their desires under the assumption that they were rooted in the “common good,” many in fact posed a threat to the liberty of others. Madison called these harmful groups, “factions.”

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.

Madison theorized that in a small republic, the number of interests would be few and, therefore, both the influence of each, and the threat each posed, would be greater. In an extensive republic, however, there would be a large variety of diverse and distinct interest groups that likely possessed different beliefs and desires. These many groups, spread out over a large territory, would be less likely to develop into harmful factions, and less able to combine to oppress minorities.

“Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and


interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once famously quipped: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” Benjamin Franklin, however, was likely far closer to the truth of human experience: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” In forming a republic based in the will of the people, equipped to establish justice and promote liberty, the Founders placed great trust in the virtue of future generations. Today we might well echo Franklin—we have a republic, if we can keep it.


Handout C: Viewing Guide for Constitutional Principle Video: Representative Government

Directions: Complete the first section while you watch the video. Then read the questions that follow. Watch the video a second time if needed, and then answer the questions.

While you watch:1. What do you think of when you hear the term “democracy?” Write down some key words and

phrases.

2. Have you heard the phrase “majority rules”? Should the majority always rule? Why or why not?

After you watch: 1. What does the principle of republican government (or representative government) mean?

2. What was the chief reason that the Founders were wary of democracy?

3. How did James Madison challenge traditional thinking about republics?

4. Why are frequent and fair elections for representative offices a necessary ingredient for sustaining representative government? Challenge question: Why are some offices elected and others appointed?

5. Could representative government exist without frequent and fair elections? Why or why not?

6. Do you agree that representative government helps prevent “tyranny of the majority”? Why or why not?


Handout D: Principles in Cartoons

Draw a cartoon or other visual representation for one of these two statements. Then answer the questions that follow.

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” -- Ben Franklin (attributed)

“Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.” – Thomas Jefferson (attributed)

1. What principle(s) allows the majority to rule within a constitutional framework?

2. How do these principle(s) protect freedom?

3. How do these principles affect you as an American?



Representative Government Module: Representative Government and Faction Lesson

OverviewAlthough the Founders believed that a representative government would be able to take the will of the people and turn it into policy and laws, they were aware that there were many obstacles to be overcome to make a functioning representative system. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison – writing under the pseudonym Publius – responded to common critiques of republican governance, and demonstrated how a representative government with a strong federal system would be able to operate effectively.


ObjectivesEvaluate how a representative government would handle self-interested factions.Explain why Madison thought a republican government in a big country would work better than in a small one.

Critically engage with this theory.Understand how good republican governance is tied to the overall structure of government.


CE.C&G.1.3: Evaluate how debates on power and authority between Federalists

and Anti-Federalists have helped shape government in the United States over time (e.g., Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Federalist Papers, strong central government, protection of individual rights, Elastic Clause, Bill of Rights, etc.).

CE.C&G.1.4: Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights –life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).


CE.C&G.2.1: Analyze the structures of national, state and local governments in terms of ways they are organized to



maintain order, security, welfare of the public and the protection of citizens (e.g., federalism, the three branches, court system, jurisdictions, judicial process, agencies, etc.).

CE.C&G.3.6: Explain ways laws have been influenced by political parties, constituents, interest groups, lobbyists, the media and public opinion (e.g., extension of suffrage, labor legislation, civil rights legislation, military policy, environmental legislation, business regulation and educational policy).

CE.C&G.4.3: Analyze the roles of citizens of North Carolina and the United States in terms of responsibilities, participation, civic life and criteria for membership or admission (e.g., voting, jury duty, lobbying, interacting successfully with government agencies, organizing and working in civic groups, volunteering, petitioning, picketing, running for political office, residency, etc.)

CE.C&G.4.4: Analyze the obligations of citizens by determining when their personal desires, interests and involvement are subordinate to the good of the nation or state (e.g., Patriot Act, Homeland Security, sedition, civil rights, equal rights under the law, jury duty, Selective Services Act, rule of law, eminent domain, etc.).


AH1.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to: 1. Identify issues and problems in the past. 2. Consider multiple

perspectives of various peoples in the past. 3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships and multiple causation. 4. Evaluate competing historical narratives and debates among historians. 5. Evaluate the influence of the past on contemporary issues.

AH1.H.2.1: Analyze key political, economic, and social turning points from colonization through Reconstruction in terms of causes and effects (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.)

AH1.H.2.2: Evaluate key turning points from colonization through Reconstruction in terms of their lasting impact (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH1.H.4.1: Analyze the political issues and conflicts that impacted the United States through Reconstruction and the compromises that resulted (e.g., American Revolution, Constitutional Convention, Bill of Rights, development of political parties, nullification, slavery, states’ rights, Civil War).

MaterialsHandout A: Federalist No. 10Handout B: Cato No.3

Warm-up [20 minutes] D. Begin the lesson by briefly describing to

students the context of the structure of government in post-Revolution America. Describe how there was disagreement about the appropriate structure of American government, and that the divide was exacerbated because different groups had different social and economic interests.



E. Have students find a partner. Assign each duo to represent a group from the early republic. They may also come up with their own ideas for groups.

a. Groups could include: plantation owners, southern or northern farmers, soldiers, merchants, lawyers, statesmen/politicians, indentured servants, homemakers, etc.

F. Students will then generate a list of things their group would want from a government.

a. Examples could include: money, tax breaks, legal privileges, power/authority, land, access to ports, representation, protection of slavery, abolition of slavery, water rights, protection of markets, foreign policy changes, protection of individual rights and liberties, rule of law and due process, advancement of regional interests, contract law, changes in master/servant relations, etc.

G. Have the students come together and share the top demands from each group. Write them on the board, and, with time permitting, allow students to vote on whether to accept each individual demand.

a. Explain to your class how factions—individual segments of the population with particular interests that can run contrary to the public good—constituted an issue that vexed the Founders and caused concern about creating a government for such a broad territory.

Activity: Readings and Documents [30 minutes] C. Distribute Handout A: Federalist No.

10 and Handout B: Cato No. 3. Have students read each handout individually.

D. In their journals students should:

Compare and contrast the arguments made in Federalist No. 10 and Cato No. 3.

Explain why Publius believed that republican (or representative) government was important to maintain the nation, how a representative structure prevents harmful factions, how the new Constitution promised such a government, and why the size of the nation would be beneficial in protecting against factions and foreign powers. Explain why Cato believed that the diverse nature of the country—with contrasts in geography, industries, and culture—would put too much strain on a large representative government.Some scholars believe that the Civil War was evidence of the validity of the Anti-Federalist claims. Do you believe that issues related to representative government led to the Civil War? Students should justify their answers using examples from the handouts and historical examples.

Wrap-Up [20 minutes]A. Divide the students into two groups. One

group will be the Federalists and the other will be the Anti-Federalists. Have the students debate the following topics from the point of view of their assigned group.a. Special interestsb. Diversityc. Cultured. Geographye. Industry and economicsf. Size of the national government g. Size of the nation


Handout A: Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

To the People of the State of New York:

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. The friend of popular Governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular Governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American Constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our Governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor

party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our Governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice, with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

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, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

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

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.


It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning Government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously

contending for preëminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to coöperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the Government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large


bodies of citizens? and what are the different classes of Legislators, but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction, must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes; and probably by neither, with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party, to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling, with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say, that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular Government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular Government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed: Let me add, that it is the great desideratum, by which this form of Government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority, at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together; that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I


mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference, between a Democracy and a Republic, are, first, the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest: Secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference 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. Under such a regulation, it may well happen, that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the People, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the People themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive Republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations.

In the first place, it is to be remarked that however small the Republic may be, the Representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of Representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the Constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small Republic, it follows, that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small Republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

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 practise 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.

It must be confessed, that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and National objects. The Federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the National, the local and particular to the State Legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of Republican, than of Democratic Government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former, than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable

that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a Republic has over a Democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small Republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of Representatives, whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied, that the Representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties, comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States: A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part


of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the National Councils against any danger from that source; A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being Republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit, and supporting the character, of Federalists.


Handout B: Cato No. 3

Fall 1787

The recital, or premises on which this new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the firm [form?] of the United States, for all the various and important purposes therein set forth.--But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.

The governments of Europe have taken their limits and form from adventitious circumstances, and nothing can be argued on the motive of agreement from them; but these adventitious political principles, have nevertheless produced effects that have attracted the attention of philosophy, which has established axioms in the science of politics therefrom, as irrefragable as any in Euclid. It is natural, says Montesquieu, to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it

cannot long subsist: in a large one, there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are too great deposits to intrust in the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; in a small one the interest of the public is easily perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have a less extent, and of course are less protected--he also shews you, that the duration of the republic of Sparta, was owing to its having continued with the same extent of territory after all its wars; and that the ambition of Athens and Lacedemon to command and direct the union, lost them their liberties, and gave them a monarchy.

From this picture, what can you promise yourselves, on the score of consolidation of the United States, into one government-- impracticability in the just exercise of it--your freedom insecure--even this form of government limited in its continuance--the employments of your country disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually be an object--you must risque much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals, whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you--where, from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too misterious for you to understand, and observe;


and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic; the latter, Mr. Locke remarks, is a government derived from neither nature, nor compact.

Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes, consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and this security therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion. This moderation in governments, depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with their political distribution.

The extent of many of the states in the Union, is at this time, almost too great for the superintendence of a republican form of government, and must one day or other, revolve into more vigorous ones, or by separation be reduced into smaller, and more useful, as well as moderate ones. You have already observed the feeble efforts of Massachusetts against their insurgents; with what difficulty did they quell that insurrection; and is not the province of Main at this moment, on the eve of separation from her. The reason of these things is, that for the security of the property of the community, in which expressive term Mr. Locke makes life, liberty, and estate, to consist--the wheels of a free republic are necessarily slow in their operation; hence in large free republics, the evil sometimes is not only begun, but almost completed, before they are in a situation to turn the current into a contrary progression: the extremes are also too remote from the usual seat of government, and the laws therefore too feeble to afford protection to all its parts, and insure domestic tranquility without the aid of

another principle. If, therefore, this state [New York], and that of N. Carolina, had an army under their controul, they never would have lost Vermont, and Frankland, nor the state of Massachusetts suffer an insurrection, or the dismemberment of her fairest district, but the exercise of a principle which would have prevented these things, if we may believe the experience of ages, would have ended in the destruction of their liberties.

Will this consolidated republic, if established, in its exercise beget such confidence and compliance, among the citizens of these states, as to do without the aid of a standing army--I deny that it will.--The mal-contents in each state, who will not be a few, nor the least important, will be exciting factions against it--the fear of a dismemberment of some of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution of revenue laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, will incidentally, and necessarily require a permanent force, to be kept on foot--will not political security, and even the opinion of it, be extinguished? can mildness and moderation exist in a government, where the primary incident in its exercise must be force? will not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist, where the extent, policy, and practice of it, will naturally lead to make odious distinctions among citizens?

The people, who may compose this national legislature from the southern states, in which, from the mildness of the climate, the fertility of the soil, and the value of its productions, wealth is rapidly acquired, and where the same causes naturally lead to luxury, dissipation, and a passion for aristocratic distinctions; where slavery is encouraged, and liberty of course, less respected, and protected; who know not


what it is to acquire property by their own toil, nor to oeconomise with the savings of industry--will these men therefore be as tenacious of the liberties and interests of the more northern states, where freedom, independence, industry, equality, and frugality, are natural to the climate and soil, as men who are your own citizens, legislating in your own state, under your inspection, and whose manners, and fortunes, bear a more equal resemblance to your own?

It may be suggested, in answer to this, that whoever is a citizen of one state, is a citizen of each, and that therefore he will be as interested in the happiness and interest of all, as the one he is delegated from; but the argument is fallacious, and, whoever has attended to the history of mankind, and the principles which bind them together as parents, citizens, or men, will readily perceive it. These principles are, in their exercise, like a pebble cast on the calm surface of a river, the circles begin in the center, and are small, active, and forcible, but as they depart from that point, they lose their force, and vanish into calmness.

The strongest principle of union resides within our domestic walls. The ties of the parent exceed that of any other; as we depart from home, the next general principle of union is amongst citizens of the same state, where acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, nourish affection, and attachment; enlarge the circle still further, and, as citizens of different states, though we acknowledge the same national denomination, we lose the ties of acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, and thus, by degrees, we lessen in our attachments, till, at length, we no more than acknowledge a sameness of species. Is it therefore, from certainty like this, reasonable to believe, that inhabitants of Georgia, or New-Hampshire, will have the

same obligations towards you as your own, and preside over your lives, liberties, and property, with the same care and attachment? Intuitive reason, answers in the negative.

The recital, or premises on which this new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the firm [form?] of the United States, for all the various and important purposes therein set forth.--But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.

The governments of Europe have taken their limits and form from adventitious circumstances, and nothing can be argued on the motive of agreement from them; but these adventitious political principles, have nevertheless produced effects that have attracted the attention of philosophy, which has established axioms in the science of politics therefrom, as irrefragable as any in Euclid. It is natural, says Montesquieu, to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist: in a large one, there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of


less moderation; there are too great deposits to intrust in the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; in a small one the interest of the public is easily perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have a less extent, and of course are less protected--he also shews you, that the duration of the republic of Sparta, was owing to its having continued with the same extent of territory after all its wars; and that the ambition of Athens and Lacedemon to command and direct the union, lost them their liberties, and gave them a monarchy.

From this picture, what can you promise yourselves, on the score of consolidation of the United States, into one government--impracticability in the just exercise of it-- your freedom insecure--even this form of government limited in its continuance--the employments of your country disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually be an object--you must risque much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals, whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you--where, from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too misterious for you to understand, and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic; the latter, Mr. Locke remarks, is a government derived from neither nature, nor compact.

Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes, consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and this security therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion. This moderation in governments, depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with their political distribution.

The extent of many of the states in the Union, is at this time, almost too great for the superintendence of a republican form of government, and must one day or other, revolve into more vigorous ones, or by separation be reduced into smaller, and more useful, as well as moderate ones. You have already observed the feeble efforts of Massachusetts against their insurgents; with what difficulty did they quell that insurrection; and is not the province of Main at this moment, on the eve of separation from her. The reason of these things is, that for the security of the property of the community, in which expressive term Mr. Locke makes life, liberty, and estate, to consist--the wheels of a free republic are necessarily slow in their operation; hence in large free republics, the evil sometimes is not only begun, but almost completed, before they are in a situation to turn the current into a contrary progression: the extremes are also too remote from the usual seat of government, and the laws therefore too feeble to afford protection to all its parts, and insure domestic tranquility without the aid of another principle. If, therefore, this state [New York], and that of N. Carolina, had an army under their controul, they never would have lost Vermont, and Frankland, nor the state of Massachusetts suffer an insurrection, or the


dismemberment of her fairest district, but the exercise of a principle which would have prevented these things, if we may believe the experience of ages, would have ended in the destruction of their liberties.

Will this consolidated republic, if established, in its exercise beget such confidence and compliance, among the citizens of these states, as to do without the aid of a standing army--I deny that it will.--The mal-contents in each state, who will not be a few, nor the least important, will be exciting factions against it--the fear of a dismemberment of some of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution of revenue laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, will incidentally, and necessarily require a permanent force, to be kept on foot--will not political security, and even the opinion of it, be extinguished? can mildness and moderation exist in a government, where the primary incident in its exercise must be force? will not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist, where the extent, policy, and practice of it, will naturally lead to make odious distinctions among citizens?

The people, who may compose this national legislature from the southern states, in which, from the mildness of the climate, the fertility of the soil, and the value of its productions, wealth is rapidly acquired, and where the same causes naturally lead to luxury, dissipation, and a passion for aristocratic distinctions; where slavery is encouraged, and liberty of course, less respected, and protected; who know not what it is to acquire property by their own toil, nor to oeconomise with the savings of industry--will these men therefore be as tenacious of the liberties and interests of the more

northern states, where freedom, independence, industry, equality, and frugality, are natural to the climate and soil, as men who are your own citizens, legislating in your own state, under your inspection, and whose manners, and fortunes, bear a more equal resemblance to your own?

It may be suggested, in answer to this, that whoever is a citizen of one state, is a citizen of each, and that therefore he will be as interested in the happiness and interest of all, as the one he is delegated from; but the argument is fallacious, and, whoever has attended to the history of mankind, and the principles which bind them together as parents, citizens, or men, will readily perceive it. These principles are, in their exercise, like a pebble cast on the calm surface of a river, the circles begin in the center, and are small, active, and forcible, but as they depart from that point, they lose their force, and vanish into calmness.

The strongest principle of union resides within our domestic walls. The ties of the parent exceed that of any other; as we depart from home, the next general principle of union is amongst citizens of the same state, where acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, nourish affection, and attachment; enlarge the circle still further, and, as citizens of different states, though we acknowledge the same national denomination, we lose the ties of acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, and thus, by degrees, we lessen in our attachments, till, at length, we no more than acknowledge a sameness of species. Is it therefore, from certainty like this, reasonable to believe, that inhabitants of Georgia, or New-Hampshire, will have the same obligations towards you as your own, and preside over your lives, liberties, and property, with the same care and attachment? Intuitive reason, answers in the negative.


Representative Government Module Answer Key

Lesson One: What is Representative Government, and How Does it Protect Freedom?

Handout A: Focus Quotations

Questions to Consider1. Madison notes that representatives can

only hold office during limited times or during good behavior because if they are not fulfilling their constitutional duties, they can be removed from office through an election or impeachment.

2. Washington believed that the responsibility for success of America depended on the American people.

Handout C: Viewing Guide for Constitutional Principle Video: Separation of Powers

While you watch:

1. Some examples may include: freedom, liberty, America, equality, rights, republic, etc.

2. Accept reasoned answers.

After you watch:

1. The people chose representatives to make and carry out laws.

2. The Founders believed that democracy was just as dangerous as monarchy because the majority could not be trusted with people’s rights. Direct democracy had been tried throughout history and had repeatedly failed.

3. Madison believed that a large, extended republic would naturally protect liberty because the people would naturally divide themselves into factions with different interests that would prevent a majority from gaining too much power over the minority.

4. Democracy is not enough to protect people’s rights, so the people elect representatives to represent their interests in government. The elections need to be frequent and fair to ensure that the people’s rights are protected. If a representative is not doing their job, the people do not have to reelect that representative. As a check on the people and their representatives, the president and Senate have the power to appoint certain offices. This ensures that these officers do not change their opinions or actions simply based on obtaining reelection.

5. Accept reasoned answers. 6. Accept reasoned answers.

Handout D: Principles in Cartoons1. What principle(s) allows the majority to rule

within a constitutional framework?

2. How do these principle(s) protect freedom?

3. How do these principles affect you as an American?