Understanding Representative Government: A Comparison Between John Locke, James Madison, and the Anti-Federalists
Location
Room 232, Schewel Hall
Access Type
Campus Access Only
Presentation Type
Oral presentation
Entry Number
111
Start Date
4-16-2026 11:00 AM
End Date
4-16-2026 11:15 AM
School
School of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Department
Philosophy
Keywords
Representative Government, Consent of the Governed, Just Government, John Locke, James Madison, Anti-Federalist, Federalism, Republic
Abstract
This research studies John Locke, an unrecognized American Founding Father, in comparison to James Madison, an American Federalist, and the Anti-Federalists, and how, through the same foundational beliefs, the Americans have differing conclusions. John Locke outlines the importance of a liberal government and how this type of government combats tyranny. This coincides with Locke’s account of consent of the governed. Both James Madison and the Anti-Federalists agree on the need for a representative government and that the representatives must be able to perform their duties for the good of the people. The main differences between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists arguments are the size of the republic and the governmental structure. James Madison argued for a large republic with a composite government that places equal value in national and federal governments. Anti-Federalists wanted a smaller republic with more power given to the states. These differences are notable because, while they stem from the ideas Locke puts forward, different governmental systems are produced. It is important to understand these differences to accurately pinpoint the conversion of political theory.
Primary Faculty Mentor(s)
Dr. Stephen Dawson
Primary Faculty Mentor(s) Department
Philosophy
Additional Faculty Mentor(s)
Dr. Lorna Dawson Dr. Elizabeth Sharrett
Rights Statement
The right to download or print any portion of this material is granted by the copyright owner only for personal or educational use. The author/creator retains all proprietary rights, including copyright ownership. Any editing, other reproduction or other use of this material by any means requires the express written permission of the copyright owner. Except as provided above, or for any other use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.), you may not reproduce, republish, post, transmit or distribute any material from this web site in any physical or digital form without the permission of the copyright owner of the material.
Understanding Representative Government: A Comparison Between John Locke, James Madison, and the Anti-Federalists
Room 232, Schewel Hall
This research studies John Locke, an unrecognized American Founding Father, in comparison to James Madison, an American Federalist, and the Anti-Federalists, and how, through the same foundational beliefs, the Americans have differing conclusions. John Locke outlines the importance of a liberal government and how this type of government combats tyranny. This coincides with Locke’s account of consent of the governed. Both James Madison and the Anti-Federalists agree on the need for a representative government and that the representatives must be able to perform their duties for the good of the people. The main differences between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists arguments are the size of the republic and the governmental structure. James Madison argued for a large republic with a composite government that places equal value in national and federal governments. Anti-Federalists wanted a smaller republic with more power given to the states. These differences are notable because, while they stem from the ideas Locke puts forward, different governmental systems are produced. It is important to understand these differences to accurately pinpoint the conversion of political theory.