Persuasive

James Madison is all about convincing you that this Government is the Grade A+, top-of-the-line, primo, absolutely, positively bestest.

Both articles bring up a problem that their Government might face, goes over a series of possible solutions, then explains why his solution is the best one. He's thorough. His goal is to convince state legislatures to come around to his and his fellow Federalists' way of thinking. Let's break down one (massive) paragraph in which he does this:

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. (51.3)

Hoo. That's a big paragraph.

In the first sentence, he lays out some facts about the division of power between the branches, setting up the conditions that he's working under. Next, he points out a problem that comes out of these conditions; in this case, the danger of one branch trying to grab at too much power. Then he drops his solution to the problem, which is giving branches some powers over the others.

Finally, he explains why his solution is necessary: because human beings aren't perfect. (Can't argue with that one.)

See what we mean? He layers observations and analyses in a way that builds up into his argument, then makes sure we know why he picked the solution he did. It's a pretty sharp technique that brings the reader to see things the way he does.