preview

Direct Democracy Dbq

Decent Essays

The Americans fought long and hard in their Revolution and deservingly so defeated the British and won their independence in 1783. From there, the US transferred to a government set by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation did not turn out to provide a much better life than the Americans had under the British, with the states not able to work with each other. The lack of state's collaboration brought about this idea of too much Democracy. After the disaster that the AofC was, there was a new Constitution being drafted; however, many Americans were divided upon which path the new Constitution should take, one with or without a strong central government. This distinction in ideology put the country's elite at odds. The …show more content…

The main argument that Madison discussed was that a strong central government would be able to control the violence of factions. As long as there is humanity, there would be factions. Destroying the causes of factions would be highly impractical and unwise. Instead Madison felt that it would be better to control the effects that these factions could potentially cause. He also stated that there were stark differences between a Direct Democracy and a Republic and their control of factions. A Direct Democracy would be controlled by the will of the largest faction, and thus the weaker minorities will have close to no say in their government. To combat against this, Madison felt that, “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” (Madison). The Federalists main argument behind their style of government was that everyone’s voice would be heard and would not be drowned out by the voice of the majority, something that only a Republic could

Get Access