September 3, 2025 • 15 mins
Dr. Alan Gibson explores Madison's revolutionary idea in Federalist 10 that republican government works better over large territories with diverse populations rather than small ones. This concept directly challenged centuries of traditional republican theory that insisted republics must remain small to function properly.
• Madison argued large republics naturally check faction formation, particularly majority factions that threaten minority rights
• Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists considered themselves republicans but disagreed fundamentally on how to structure the government
• Traditional republican theory identified three pure forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) that each faced distinct corruption problems
• Montesquieu and others believed small republics were necessary because "the public good is better felt, better known" in smaller territories
• Anti-Federalist Brutus feared an extended republic would inevitably lead to power consolidation, unrepresentative government, and eventually monarchy
• Many Anti-Federalists recognized the need for constitutional reform but preferred strengthening the Articles of Confederation rather than creating a powerful central government
• The debate centered on faction control, representation, and preventing government corruption
Join us in the next episode as we dive deeper into Federalist 10 and explore more of Madison's groundbreaking political theory.
Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!
School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back everyone .
I am really excited for thiskind of part of the series
because we're going to reallydive into the Federalist Papers,
and I'm really excited to haveour guest, Dr Alan Gibson, who
is going to be a visitingprofessor at Skettle in the
spring of 2026, but currentlyworks at the Kinder Institute at
(00:21):
the University of Missouri.
Dr Gibson, thank you so muchfor being here.
And the question that we'relooking at today is what is kind
of that main idea of Federalist10?
And I know you're going to getinto Brutus 1 and kind of get
into more of this, but we'llkind of start there.
What's the main idea ofFederalist 10?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Okay, well, first thank you for having me here.
I'm really looking forward todoing this.
It's a lot of fun.
I get to revisit ideas I'vebeen thinking about for a long
time.
Also, incidentally, I gradedAmerican Advanced Placement Test
for 20 years, the first part ofmy career.
I haven't done it in a decadeor so, but I did it for a really
(01:04):
long time.
So communicating to that groupof students will be fun as well
and revisit some things that Idid earlier in my life.
In a nutshell, the idea ofFederalist Number 10 is that
Republican government can beextended over a large
geographical area with a largepopulation and you'll end up
(01:24):
with a more stable Republicangovernment in a large
geographical area, again with alarge population and diverse
interests, than you would in asmall territory.
In a small territory you'regoing to have a problem of
majority factionalism that'sgoing to arise and that really
Madison says there's no remedyfor the problem of a majority
(01:48):
faction, which is his centralconcern in the Federalist no 10.
In a small geographical areayou can't really remedy that
problem, at least not based uponthe Republican form, and that's
the other part of therequirement.
You have to have a Republicanremedy for the Republican
problem of faction.
(02:08):
So if I could just roll backfrom after stating that basic
proposition, if I could justroll back and talk about
Republicanism and the Republicantradition before Madison, then
I'll just go through step bystep through the argument of
Federalist no 10 and elaborateon some different things.
But the Federalists andAnti-Federalists alike
(02:31):
considered themselves to beRepublicans.
The Republican form ofgovernment was the only one that
was going to be consistent withthe principles of the American
Revolution that had been fought.
Obviously we'd fought a waragainst a monarchy or a monarch
in particular, and it's also thecase that the framers believed
the genus of the American people, or the genius I'm sorry by
(02:54):
which they meant the spirit orethos of the American people,
was Republican.
We didn't have the one, the fewand the many in our society.
We were just a group of people,a kind of middle-class group of
individuals, of Republicanforms of government, through
(03:15):
ancient historians principally,but also all kinds of political
commentators and politicalphilosophers, and there was this
belief that there were threepure forms of government.
(03:36):
Those were monarchy,aristocracy and democracy.
And democracy and democraciesand republics are roughly
analogous with each other, butMadison defines them differently
, and so we can get into that alittle bit later, but anyway, a
(03:56):
monarchy was susceptible to theproblem of tyranny.
An aristocracy naturally turnedinto an oligarchy, which is the
rule of the wealthy few.
That was the problem when itbecame corrupted.
An aristocracy became anoligarchy and the problem that
was associated with democraciesand republics were turbulence,
(04:18):
instability and factionalism,and those were all an associated
constellation of problems thatneeded to be dealt with.
And so in this, both groups ofthose anti-feralists and
federalists were on the samepage with regard to those
(04:41):
principles of government andthat sort of thing, to those
principles of government andthat sort of thing.
But the question was how do youaddress the problem of faction?
And that's of course whatMadison's talking about in
Federalist no 10.
And that's where they're goingto disagree in that.
And so, within this longRepublican tradition also, there
(05:02):
were two other basicpropositions, and one of these
basic propositions was that youreally did have to try to cure
the mischiefs of faction, to useMadison's language, by trying
to give everyone the sameopinions, passions or interests,
or educating people in the samesets of beliefs and creating
(05:25):
similar interests between them.
And a second proposition thatcame out of that was that
Republican governments had to beconfined to a small
geographical area.
So this was I'm calling thisthe small republic thesis.
Madison calls it in Federalistno 14, which also deals with the
(05:46):
extended republic argument.
He calls it the prevailingprejudice with regard to the
size of a practical republicanadministration.
So what is the proper size tohave for a republic?
The tradition that Madisoninherits and that Brutus is
appropriating says that you haveto have a small republic.
(06:10):
So why do you need a smallrepublic?
There are a lot of differentanswers to that in this
republican tradition.
Commentators are not don'talways give it exactly the same
thing, but there's also thiskind of generic answer that the
framers themselves inherit andthat generic answer is basically
(06:33):
that you lose the content, youlose awareness of an
understanding and knowledge ofthe public good.
In a large geographical area inwhich all of these different
economic interests and religioussects and diverse climates and
peoples and things like that,it's very hard to discern some
(06:57):
common good between all of thesediverse elements in a large,
and you necessarily get thatdiversity when you create a
large republic.
So the first part of this issimply an awareness that there
is a public good.
And let's see, I had a quotefrom Montesquieu here about this
(07:20):
.
Montesquieu says in a largerepublic the common good is
sacrificed to a thousandconsiderations, it is
subordinated to expectations, toexceptions I'm sorry, it
depends upon accidents.
In a small one, the public goodis better felt, better known,
lies nearer to each citizen,abuses are less extensive there
(07:45):
and consequently less protected.
So that, in a nutshell, is oneof two primary reasons why you
need a small geographical areafor a public.
According to this tradition.
Then the second thing that iscommonly said about this is if
you either have a largegeographical area, then you try
(08:09):
to govern it as a republic, it'sgoing to naturally transform
into a monarchy or a kingship.
It's going to take, accordingto this understanding of
government, it's going to take aking who commands force, and
also maybe in some cases, forceof personality, to hold together
(08:34):
this diverse people in thislarge geographical area.
And if you try to create arepublic in a large geographical
area, it's going to transforminto that kind of government
naturally anyway.
If you have a king who'sgoverning, then that's the right
(08:55):
thing to do.
If you have a largegeographical area and if you
make the mistake of trying toform a republic in a large
geographical area, it's going tobecome a kingship anyway.
It's going to become a monarchyanyway.
So that is the inheritedtradition.
And then Brutus is ananti-federalist, so he's formed
(09:16):
a more decentralized system ofgovernment system of government.
He sees the state governmentsthemselves as the primary units
on which the union will beformed, and they're going to
also be the locus ofdecision-making in the republic.
(09:38):
That's where most of thedecisions are going to be made.
Some of the anti-federalistsfavored some reforms of the
Constitution and giving somepowers to the national
government.
Commercial regulation and thepower of taxation were the
common ones.
But they were not as extensivein granting authorities to the
national government as thefederalists, to be sure.
(10:00):
And so what?
In appropriating the smallrepublic thesis, brutus is
saying if you create thisrepublic over this large
geographical area, it'snaturally going to fail.
It's just inevitably going tofail.
And look at all these writerswho said that the republican
government can't do that, itcan't meet these expectations.
(10:24):
It's going to once, once again,transform.
There's this belief.
The anti-federalists are almostobsessed with the idea of what
is termed consolidation at thistime, the consolidation of power
in a single person, in amonarch and a single branch.
And we'll see this when we talkabout Federalist no 51 in a few
(10:45):
minutes as well.
They're really obsessed withthis problem of consolidation.
And that's what's going tohappen if you try to create a
Republican government in a largegeographical area.
Power is going to concentratein the national government.
That's going to eliminate thestates.
It's going to concentrate,probably in the executive branch
(11:09):
and that executive branch isgoing to transform into a
monarchy at the national level.
So it's very ill-advised to dothat.
Brutus is also talking in thatabout how people there aren't
enough representatives in underthe Constitution.
And so the belief was andMadison says this in Fair
(11:33):
Oldness, number 10 as well thatif you have a large territory
you can have larger geographical, larger electoral districts
with greater number ofindividuals in them and you can
have fewer representatives inthem.
You're going to have fewerrepresentatives in proportion to
the population in a largerepublic than a small republic.
(11:55):
Brutus is saying they didn'tgive us enough representatives
to represent these three millionpeople who are in the United
States.
Not all of the interests of thepeople are going to be
represented.
It's impossible to representall the interests of the people
at the national level and alsothe people aren't going to know
(12:17):
who these people are, theirelectoral districts in which
they elect them are going to betoo vast and further they're
going to be put away a long wayaway.
This is a three-mile-an-hoursociety that these individuals
live in, and that's an importantconsideration.
And they're not going to knowtheir representatives when they
elect them as well, and thenthey're going to lose sight of
(12:40):
them and the ability to holdthem accountable once they are
elected.
So Brutus believes that this isa kind of a recipe for disaster
creating an extended republicand giving substantial powers
anyway to the nationalgovernment.
(13:00):
They want to.
Basically, anti-federalists dostay with the Articles
Confederation.
They want a somewhat fortifiedArticles Confederation.
With regard to theanti-federalists also though,
it's a stereotype to say thatthey didn't—it's false actually
to say that they did notunderstand that there was a
(13:22):
crisis of Republican governmentand that we needed
constitutional reform.
Many of them did, and I noticedimmediately that Brutus says
we've got a problem here in thevery beginning of Brutus 1.
He says we need some kind ofreform here.
He just doesn't, like manyanti-federalists, favor the
(13:43):
reforms that the federalists do,and especially empowering this
national government thatstretches across this large
geographical area with thesepowers that will become and
giving it to representatives whowill necessarily become
unaccountable to theirconstituents.
So that's sort of a preliminarypart of that.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
That's Brutus's part each thank you to Dr Alan Gibson
for his expertise on this.
Please join us for the nextepisode where we're going to be
diving even deeper intoFederalist 10.
Welcome back everyone .
I am really excited for thiskind of part of the series
because we're going to reallydive into the Federalist Papers,
and I'm really excited to haveour guest, Dr Alan Gibson, who
is going to be a visitingprofessor at Skettle in the
spring of 2026, but currentlyworks at the Kinder Institute at
(00:21):
the University of Missouri.
Dr Gibson, thank you so muchfor being here.
And the question that we'relooking at today is what is kind
of that main idea of Federalist10?
And I know you're going to getinto Brutus 1 and kind of get
into more of this, but we'llkind of start there.
What's the main idea ofFederalist 10?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Okay, well, first thank you for having me here.
I'm really looking forward todoing this.
It's a lot of fun.
I get to revisit ideas I'vebeen thinking about for a long
time.
Also, incidentally, I gradedAmerican Advanced Placement Test
for 20 years, the first part ofmy career.
I haven't done it in a decadeor so, but I did it for a really
(01:04):
long time.
So communicating to that groupof students will be fun as well
and revisit some things that Idid earlier in my life.
In a nutshell, the idea ofFederalist Number 10 is that
Republican government can beextended over a large
geographical area with a largepopulation and you'll end up
(01:24):
with a more stable Republicangovernment in a large
geographical area, again with alarge population and diverse
interests, than you would in asmall territory.
In a small territory you'regoing to have a problem of
majority factionalism that'sgoing to arise and that really
Madison says there's no remedyfor the problem of a majority
(01:48):
faction, which is his centralconcern in the Federalist no 10.
In a small geographical areayou can't really remedy that
problem, at least not based uponthe Republican form, and that's
the other part of therequirement.
You have to have a Republicanremedy for the Republican
problem of faction.
(02:08):
So if I could just roll backfrom after stating that basic
proposition, if I could justroll back and talk about
Republicanism and the Republicantradition before Madison, then
I'll just go through step bystep through the argument of
Federalist no 10 and elaborateon some different things.
But the Federalists andAnti-Federalists alike
(02:31):
considered themselves to beRepublicans.
The Republican form ofgovernment was the only one that
was going to be consistent withthe principles of the American
Revolution that had been fought.
Obviously we'd fought a waragainst a monarchy or a monarch
in particular, and it's also thecase that the framers believed
the genus of the American people, or the genius I'm sorry by
(02:54):
which they meant the spirit orethos of the American people,
was Republican.
We didn't have the one, the fewand the many in our society.
We were just a group of people,a kind of middle-class group of
individuals, of Republicanforms of government, through
(03:15):
ancient historians principally,but also all kinds of political
commentators and politicalphilosophers, and there was this
belief that there were threepure forms of government.
(03:36):
Those were monarchy,aristocracy and democracy.
And democracy and democraciesand republics are roughly
analogous with each other, butMadison defines them differently
, and so we can get into that alittle bit later, but anyway, a
(03:56):
monarchy was susceptible to theproblem of tyranny.
An aristocracy naturally turnedinto an oligarchy, which is the
rule of the wealthy few.
That was the problem when itbecame corrupted.
An aristocracy became anoligarchy and the problem that
was associated with democraciesand republics were turbulence,
(04:18):
instability and factionalism,and those were all an associated
constellation of problems thatneeded to be dealt with.
And so in this, both groups ofthose anti-feralists and
federalists were on the samepage with regard to those
(04:41):
principles of government andthat sort of thing, to those
principles of government andthat sort of thing.
But the question was how do youaddress the problem of faction?
And that's of course whatMadison's talking about in
Federalist no 10.
And that's where they're goingto disagree in that.
And so, within this longRepublican tradition also, there
(05:02):
were two other basicpropositions, and one of these
basic propositions was that youreally did have to try to cure
the mischiefs of faction, to useMadison's language, by trying
to give everyone the sameopinions, passions or interests,
or educating people in the samesets of beliefs and creating
(05:25):
similar interests between them.
And a second proposition thatcame out of that was that
Republican governments had to beconfined to a small
geographical area.
So this was I'm calling thisthe small republic thesis.
Madison calls it in Federalistno 14, which also deals with the
(05:46):
extended republic argument.
He calls it the prevailingprejudice with regard to the
size of a practical republicanadministration.
So what is the proper size tohave for a republic?
The tradition that Madisoninherits and that Brutus is
appropriating says that you haveto have a small republic.
(06:10):
So why do you need a smallrepublic?
There are a lot of differentanswers to that in this
republican tradition.
Commentators are not don'talways give it exactly the same
thing, but there's also thiskind of generic answer that the
framers themselves inherit andthat generic answer is basically
(06:33):
that you lose the content, youlose awareness of an
understanding and knowledge ofthe public good.
In a large geographical area inwhich all of these different
economic interests and religioussects and diverse climates and
peoples and things like that,it's very hard to discern some
(06:57):
common good between all of thesediverse elements in a large,
and you necessarily get thatdiversity when you create a
large republic.
So the first part of this issimply an awareness that there
is a public good.
And let's see, I had a quotefrom Montesquieu here about this
(07:20):
.
Montesquieu says in a largerepublic the common good is
sacrificed to a thousandconsiderations, it is
subordinated to expectations, toexceptions I'm sorry, it
depends upon accidents.
In a small one, the public goodis better felt, better known,
lies nearer to each citizen,abuses are less extensive there
(07:45):
and consequently less protected.
So that, in a nutshell, is oneof two primary reasons why you
need a small geographical areafor a public.
According to this tradition.
Then the second thing that iscommonly said about this is if
you either have a largegeographical area, then you try
(08:09):
to govern it as a republic, it'sgoing to naturally transform
into a monarchy or a kingship.
It's going to take, accordingto this understanding of
government, it's going to take aking who commands force, and
also maybe in some cases, forceof personality, to hold together
(08:34):
this diverse people in thislarge geographical area.
And if you try to create arepublic in a large geographical
area, it's going to transforminto that kind of government
naturally anyway.
If you have a king who'sgoverning, then that's the right
(08:55):
thing to do.
If you have a largegeographical area and if you
make the mistake of trying toform a republic in a large
geographical area, it's going tobecome a kingship anyway.
It's going to become a monarchyanyway.
So that is the inheritedtradition.
And then Brutus is ananti-federalist, so he's formed
(09:16):
a more decentralized system ofgovernment system of government.
He sees the state governmentsthemselves as the primary units
on which the union will beformed, and they're going to
also be the locus ofdecision-making in the republic.
(09:38):
That's where most of thedecisions are going to be made.
Some of the anti-federalistsfavored some reforms of the
Constitution and giving somepowers to the national
government.
Commercial regulation and thepower of taxation were the
common ones.
But they were not as extensivein granting authorities to the
national government as thefederalists, to be sure.
(10:00):
And so what?
In appropriating the smallrepublic thesis, brutus is
saying if you create thisrepublic over this large
geographical area, it'snaturally going to fail.
It's just inevitably going tofail.
And look at all these writerswho said that the republican
government can't do that, itcan't meet these expectations.
(10:24):
It's going to once, once again,transform.
There's this belief.
The anti-federalists are almostobsessed with the idea of what
is termed consolidation at thistime, the consolidation of power
in a single person, in amonarch and a single branch.
And we'll see this when we talkabout Federalist no 51 in a few
(10:45):
minutes as well.
They're really obsessed withthis problem of consolidation.
And that's what's going tohappen if you try to create a
Republican government in a largegeographical area.
Power is going to concentratein the national government.
That's going to eliminate thestates.
It's going to concentrate,probably in the executive branch
(11:09):
and that executive branch isgoing to transform into a
monarchy at the national level.
So it's very ill-advised to dothat.
Brutus is also talking in thatabout how people there aren't
enough representatives in underthe Constitution.
And so the belief was andMadison says this in Fair
(11:33):
Oldness, number 10 as well thatif you have a large territory
you can have larger geographical, larger electoral districts
with greater number ofindividuals in them and you can
have fewer representatives inthem.
You're going to have fewerrepresentatives in proportion to
the population in a largerepublic than a small republic.
(11:55):
Brutus is saying they didn'tgive us enough representatives
to represent these three millionpeople who are in the United
States.
Not all of the interests of thepeople are going to be
represented.
It's impossible to representall the interests of the people
at the national level and alsothe people aren't going to know
(12:17):
who these people are, theirelectoral districts in which
they elect them are going to betoo vast and further they're
going to be put away a long wayaway.
This is a three-mile-an-hoursociety that these individuals
live in, and that's an importantconsideration.
And they're not going to knowtheir representatives when they
elect them as well, and thenthey're going to lose sight of
(12:40):
them and the ability to holdthem accountable once they are
elected.
So Brutus believes that this isa kind of a recipe for disaster
creating an extended republicand giving substantial powers
anyway to the nationalgovernment.
(13:00):
They want to.
Basically, anti-federalists dostay with the Articles
Confederation.
They want a somewhat fortifiedArticles Confederation.
With regard to theanti-federalists also though,
it's a stereotype to say thatthey didn't—it's false actually
to say that they did notunderstand that there was a
(13:22):
crisis of Republican governmentand that we needed
constitutional reform.
Many of them did, and I noticedimmediately that Brutus says
we've got a problem here in thevery beginning of Brutus 1.
He says we need some kind ofreform here.
He just doesn't, like manyanti-federalists, favor the
(13:43):
reforms that the federalists do,and especially empowering this
national government thatstretches across this large
geographical area with thesepowers that will become and
giving it to representatives whowill necessarily become
unaccountable to theirconstituents.
So that's sort of a preliminarypart of that.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
That's Brutus's part each thank you to Dr Alan Gibson
for his expertise on this.
Please join us for the nextepisode where we're going to be
diving even deeper intoFederalist 10.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.