These letters are entirely imaginary—offered with wit, affection, and no partisan agenda. We hope they make you smile, make you think, and perhaps send you back to what the founders actually wrote.
If this makes you think—or smile—please click “Like.” It helps these letters reach more readers who care about the republic the founders imagined.
Following publication of Federalist No. 10, Madison writes to Hamilton speculating about the future of faction in the republic.
Philadelphia, November 25, 1787
Dear Hamilton,
I have this day sent to press my tenth number, in which I argue that the causes of faction are sown in the nature of man and cannot be removed—only controlled. The extended republic, I contend, multiplies factions so that no single interest may dominate, and representation refines the public voice through the medium of chosen citizens.
Yet I confess a lingering unease. Suppose that, centuries hence, the multiplicity of factions I celebrate should collapse into merely two. Suppose these two great parties harden into permanent armies, each commanding the unwavering loyalty of half the nation. Citizens would inherit their faction as they inherit their father’s religion—not by reason, but by birth and custom.
In such a circumstance, the extended republic offers no remedy. The variety of interests I prize would sort themselves into two camps, and every question—however remote from the original division—would be decided not on its merits but by the accident of which faction proposes it. A man’s opinion on roads or treaties would be fixed by his party, not his judgment.
Is this not faction triumphant rather than faction controlled?
Your friend and servant, J. Madison
New York, December 8, 1787
Dear Madison,
Your speculation chills me, for I recognize its plausibility. History furnishes abundant precedent. Rome’s optimates and populares divided that republic until Caesar resolved the question by the sword. England’s Whigs and Tories have contested for a century, and the animosity shows no sign of exhaustion.
You place your hope in multiplicity—many factions checking one another. But what if the machinery of elections itself rewards consolidation? If a citizen must choose between two banners or waste his suffrage, will he not eventually enlist? And once enlisted, will he not defend his colors against all evidence and argument?
I foresee a darker turn still. If faction becomes permanent, then the institutions designed to check ambition become prizes to be captured rather than trusted arbiters. The judiciary, the legislature, even the executive would be colonized by faction, and each party would govern not for the republic but for its own perpetuation.
The disease you describe is not faction merely—it is faction transformed into identity, and identity admits no compromise.
Your obedient servant, A. Hamilton
Philadelphia, December 20, 1787
Dear Hamilton,
You have extended my fear to its grim conclusion. If faction becomes identity, then persuasion becomes betrayal, and the loyal opposition becomes simply the enemy.
I had hoped the remedy lay in structure. Perhaps it must also lie in culture—in citizens who love the republic more than their party. But that is a remedy I cannot design, only pray for.
Ever yours, Madison
If they only knew…
…that by the early nineteenth century, two permanent parties would indeed emerge—and that two centuries later, citizens would inherit their faction almost as reliably as their names. Madison feared that faction might harden into identity. He could not have known how completely it would.
Questions for Reflection:
Madison worried that faction might harden into identity. Do you believe Americans today choose their party—or inherit it?
Hamilton warned that institutions would become “prizes to be captured” by faction. Can you think of institutions that have been captured—by either side?
Share your thoughts in the comments—and if this made you think, please click “Like” to help these letters reach more readers.