Xie, you are so naive it's dangerous.
Madison wrote:
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
From the heart of a true conservative (President Ronald W. Reagan) "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Reagan - a former Democrat (one of those that the anti-Southerns yahoos love to revile), understood perfectly that government was not the be-all end-all solution to every ill, government tends to invent cures for diseases that don't exist.
Having an "R" besides ones name does not make one a consrvative, the "R" does not make them into someone passionate about liberty and freedom from an oppressive government/nanny-state. If Lincoln were passionate about enforcing laws he would have enforced the fugitive laws, yet nowhere did he advocate sending troops to resupply enforce the law in northern states. He was a hypocrite, a flaming liberal hell-bent on destroying a faction, a faction of people that disagreed with his socialist/Whig politics.
You'd think we could get a moderator in here (on these threads) that was a strict constructionist. Possibly one that understood that the government we have today - albeit better than some alternatives - is a far cry from what we had at our founding.
Madison doubted such theories. He believed that homogeneous states could be enemies of liberty. They could oppress minorities and dissenters. In Madison's eyes the idea that states had one heart and one voice encouraged demagoguery and "faction."
That's why he believed that federalism and the "extended republic" were a better safeguard of popular liberties than sovereign state governments. In a federal system, local majorities and oligarchies competed with one another and couldn't simply impose their will on the entire union. Take another look look at Federalist 10:
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State. [Emphasis added]
It's doubtless true that the federal government can become oppressive or tyrannical, but one can't simply assume that state's rights or state sovereignty means liberty or that more power to the states means more freedom.