
The Federalist No. 14
Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory
Answered
New York Packet
Friday, November 30, 1787
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:
WE HAVE
seen the necessity of the Union, as our bulwark against foreign
danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian
of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute
for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties
of the Old World, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of
faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and
of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own. All that
remains, within this branch of our inquiries, is to take notice of
an objection that may be drawn from the great extent of country
which the Union embraces. A few observations on this subject will be
the more proper, as it is perceived that the adversaries of the new
Constitution are availing themselves of the prevailing prejudice
with regard to the practicable sphere of republican administration,
in order to supply, by imaginary difficulties, the want of those
solid objections which they endeavor in vain to find.
The error which limits republican government to a
narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I
remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence
chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying
to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The
true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a
former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and
exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and
administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy,
consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be
extended over a large region.
To this accidental source of the error may be added
the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a
great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions.
Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have
endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of
those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the
republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent
democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion
of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic
observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the
observation that it can never be established but among a small
number of people, living within a small compass of territory.
Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as
most of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic
species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great
principle of representation, no example is seen of a government
wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that
principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering this great
mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which the
will of the largest political body may be concentred, and its force
directed to any object which the public good requires, America can
claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and
extensive republics. It is only to be lamented that any of her
citizens should wish to deprive her of the additional merit of
displaying its full efficacy in the establishment of the
comprehensive system now under her consideration.
As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance
from the central point which will just permit the most remote
citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and
will include no greater number than can join in those functions; so
the natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre
which will barely allow the representatives to meet as often as may
be necessary for the administration of public affairs. Can it be
said that the limits of the United States exceed this distance? It
will not be said by those who recollect that the Atlantic coast is
the longest side of the Union, that during the term of thirteen
years, the representatives of the States have been almost
continually assembled, and that the members from the most distant
States are not chargeable with greater intermissions of attendance
than those from the States in the neighborhood of Congress.
That we may form a juster estimate with regard to
this interesting subject, let us resort to the actual dimensions of
the Union. The limits, as fixed by the treaty of peace, are: on the
east the Atlantic, on the south the latitude of thirty-one degrees,
on the west the Mississippi, and on the north an irregular line
running in some instances beyond the forty-fifth degree, in others
falling as low as the forty-second. The southern shore of Lake Erie
lies below that latitude. Computing the distance between the
thirty-first and forty-fifth degrees, it amounts to nine hundred and
seventy-three common miles; computing it from thirty-one to
forty-two degrees, to seven hundred and sixty-four miles and a half.
Taking the mean for the distance, the amount will be eight hundred
and sixty-eight miles and three-fourths. The mean distance from the
Atlantic to the Mississippi does not probably exceed seven hundred
and fifty miles. On a comparison of this extent with that of several
countries in Europe, the practicability of rendering our system
commensurate to it appears to be demonstrable. It is not a great
deal larger than Germany, where a diet representing the whole empire
is continually assembled; or than Poland before the late
dismemberment, where another national diet was the depositary of the
supreme power. Passing by France and Spain, we find that in Great
Britain, inferior as it may be in size, the representatives of the
northern extremity of the island have as far to travel to the
national council as will be required of those of the most remote
parts of the Union.
Favorable as this view of the subject may be, some
observations remain which will place it in a light still more
satisfactory.
In the first place it is to be remembered that the
general government is not to be charged with the whole power of
making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to
certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the
republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate
provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend
their care to all those other subjects which can be separately
provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it
proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of
the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for
their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if
they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by
the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their
proper jurisdiction.
A second observation to be made is that the
immediate object of the federal Constitution is to secure the union
of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be practicable;
and to add to them such other States as may arise in their own
bosoms, or in their neighborhoods, which we cannot doubt to be
equally practicable. The arrangements that may be necessary for
those angles and fractions of our territory which lie on our
northwestern frontier, must be left to those whom further
discoveries and experience will render more equal to the task.
Let it be remarked, in the third place, that the
intercourse throughout the Union will be facilitated by new
improvements. Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better
order; accommodations for travelers will be multiplied and
meliorated; an interior navigation on our eastern side will be
opened throughout, or nearly throughout, the whole extent of the
thirteen States. The communication between the Western and Atlantic
districts, and between different parts of each, will be rendered
more and more easy by those numerous canals with which the
beneficence of nature has intersected our country, and which art
finds it so little difficult to connect and complete.
A fourth and still more important consideration is,
that as almost every State will, on one side or other, be a
frontier, and will thus find, in regard to its safety, an inducement
to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection; so
the States which lie at the greatest distance from the heart of the
Union, and which, of course, may partake least of the ordinary
circulation of its benefits, will be at the same time immediately
contiguous to foreign nations, and will consequently stand, on
particular occasions, in greatest need of its strength and
resources. It may be inconvenient for Georgia, or the States forming
our western or northeastern borders, to send their representatives
to the seat of government; but they would find it more so to
struggle alone against an invading enemy, or even to support alone
the whole expense of those precautions which may be dictated by the
neighborhood of continual danger. If they should derive less
benefit, therefore, from the Union in some respects than the less
distant States, they will derive greater benefit from it in other
respects, and thus the proper equilibrium will be maintained
throughout.
I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, these
considerations, in full confidence that the good sense which has so
often marked your decisions will allow them their due weight and
effect; and that you will never suffer difficulties, however
formidable in appearance, or however fashionable the error on which
they may be founded, to drive you into the gloomy and perilous scene
into which the advocates for disunion would conduct you. Hearken not
to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America,
knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no
longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer
continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no
longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing
empire. Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the
form of government recommended for your adoption is a novelty in the
political world; that it has never yet had a place in the theories
of the wildest projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is
impossible to accomplish. No, my countrymen, shut your ears against
this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which
it conveys; the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American
citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their
sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea
of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to
be shunned, believe me, the most alarming of all novelties, the most
wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of
rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and
promote our happiness. But why is the experiment of an extended
republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new?
Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have
paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other
nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity,
for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own
good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of
their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be
indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the
numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of
private rights and public happiness. Had no important step been
taken by the leaders of the Revolution for which a precedent could
not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model
did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at
this moment have been numbered among the melancholy victims of
misguided councils, must at best have been laboring under the weight
of some of those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest
of mankind. Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole
human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They
accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of
human society. They reared the fabrics of governments which have no
model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great
Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve
and perpetuate. If their works betray imperfections, we wonder at
the fewness of them. If they erred most in the structure of the
Union, this was the work most difficult to be executed; this is the
work which has been new modelled by the act of your convention, and
it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide.
PUBLIUS
|