Federalist 14 Paraphrased
The Federalist Number 14: Objections to the Proposed Constitution Because of the Size and Extent of the Country paraphrased into Modern English
by James Madison, November 30, 1787.
To: the people of New York,
We have seen how much we need a Union to act as a strong defense against foreign enemies, to conserve peace among ourselves, to guard our trade and other common interests, to counter the kinds of militaries that overthrew liberties in Europe, and to counteract the kinds of factions that destroyed other pure democracies and show signs of threatening our own democracy. The only thing left to consider in this series of questions is to address the large size of the country. I will make a few observations about this, since those who oppose the new Constitution are taking advantage of the concern about how large a sphere a Republican government can manage. By citing imaginary problems, they hope to make up for having no solid objections.
Previous articles have already addressed the mistaken notion that a Republican government can only work in a small area. I will only add that this mistaken notion seems to come from a confusion between a Republic and a democracy, and from applying logic about the nature of a democracy to a Republic. The distinction between the two was also explained in a previous article. Basically, it is this: in a pure democracy, all the people meet and take care of the government in person. In a Republic, they delegate that to representatives and deputies. That means that a democracy must be limited to a small geographical area, but a Republic can extend over a large region.
There is not only that unintentional confusion. There is also the deception from some famous writers whose articles have influenced the public's opinions. Since those writers have lived under an absolute or limited monarchy, they have tried to magnify the advantages and minimize the evils of that type of government by comparing and contrasting the corruption and flaws of a Republic -- but they're citing examples of unstable democracies from ancient Greece and modern Italy to make their point! By confusing the labels, it's been easy for them to blame their observations of violent democracies on a Republican form of government. Not only that, but their observations are based on a small number of people living in a small geographical area.
That kind of fallacy is easy to miss, since most ancient popular forms of government were democratic governments. Even in modern Europe, from whom we get the noble principle of representation, there is no example of a democracy that is both a pure democracy and also founded on the principle of representation. Perhaps Europe has the distinction of discovering the efficient organized plan of government where the will of the largest political body is centralized, and its energy is put to work on whatever project the public good needs. Well, America has a distinction, too -- the distinction of discovering the foundation of absolute and large Republics. It is tragic that any of America's citizens would want to deprive her of the distinction of demonstrating how fully efficient a comprehensive Republic would be simply because they don't want to ratify the new Constitution.
What is democracy's natural limit? It is the distance from the central point to however far away the furthest citizens will be able to meet as often as they need in order to do their functions, and it is limited to however many people are able to carry out those functions. On the other hand, the natural limit of a Republic is the distance from the central point to however far away the representatives can meet as often as they need to in order to carry out their public services. Does the United States exceed this distance? The Atlantic coast is the longest side of the Union, yet during the last thirteen years, the representatives of the different states have almost always been assembled. Even the representatives from the farthest states haven't had to miss any more meetings than those who live near Congress.
In order to form a more accurate opinion of this, let's consider the actual dimensions of the country. The peace treaty [with Great Britain] set these boundaries: on the east, the Atlantic Ocean is the border. On the south, the latitude of 31 degrees is the border. The Mississippi River is the western border, and the north's border is an irregular line that meanders between the 42nd and 45th degree of latitude. The southern part of Lake Erie is below that latitude [and thus belongs to the US]. If we calculate the distance between the north and south border, it comes to 764.5 to 973 miles, depending on whether you use the 42nd or 45th degree of latitude. Let's use a number in between: 868.75 miles from north to south. The average distance from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River is probably no more than 750 miles. Since we're about the same size as many European countries, it seems like we could demonstrate how feasible our system could work. Our country isn't much larger than Germany, and they have a diet [official assembly] that meets almost continually. Poland, before they were recently broken up, was about the same size, and they also had a system of government requiring a diet to meet almost continually. Great Britain is smaller, but representatives from the very northernmost part of the country have just as far to travel to their parliamentary meetings as representatives from even the most remote areas of the United States.
Thus, distance for representatives doesn't appear to be a problem, but there are other observations that make a Republic seem even more advantageous.
For one thing, the federal government won't be the only one with the power to make and enforce laws. Its jurisdiction [area of authority] is limited to specific listed matters -- matters that concern everyone in the entire Republic, but that can't be handled by any single state. The state governments, which are able to take care of all the other matters that can be handled at a more local level, will continue to keep their proper authority and activity. If the Constitutional Convention had even suggested dissolving the separate state governments, then those who oppose the Constitution would have reasons for objecting -- although it would be easy to show that even if state governments were dissolved, the federal government would be forced to reinstate them in their appropriate jurisdiction simply out of self-preservation.
Second, the primary purpose of the federal Constitution is to protect the union of the original thirteen states that are already operating smoothly. We'd also like to add other States that might rise up around them or among them, and we think they will be just as viable. The arrangements that might be necessary for all the territories on our northwestern frontier [around the Great Lakes] will have to be left to those who are more equal to the task because of their further discoveries and experience.
Third, communication throughout the Union will be made much easier with new improvements that a federal government can implement. Roads will be streamlined and kept in better condition. Accommodations for people who are traveling will be more plentiful and comfortable. Navigation on our eastern side will be opened up throughout all thirteen States. Communication between the Western districts and Eastern districts, and between parts of those districts, will be made much easier by using all of the rivers that are so naturally plentiful and intersect the country and can easily be connected to make uninterrupted waterways.
Fourth, and even more important, since almost every State has a frontier on one of its borders, even those on the interior are motivated to make some sacrifices in order to defend the borders and protect their general population from invasion. Similarly, States that lie farthest away from the heart of the Union might be in a position to enjoy less of the benefits the government will have to offer, but they'll also be the closest to foreign nations [and more vulnerable to invasion]. They will have a greater need for the strength and resources of the Union. It might be inconvenient for faraway Georgia, or other States on our western or northern borders, to send representatives all the way to the seat of government. But it would be even more inconvenient for them to have to struggle alone against an invading army, or even to maintain whatever defensive precautions might be needed if their area is in continual danger of attack. So those States might not benefit from a Union in some ways, but they would benefit in other ways. Thus, everything would balance out.
My fellow citizens, I submit these considerations because I am completely confident that the good sense you have shown so often in your decisions before will allow you to examine them seriously. I am sure that you will never allow challenges, no matter how daunting they may seem, or how trendy the misconception they're founded on, to drive you into the gloomy and perilous scene that those promoting disunion want to take you to. Don't listen to the unnatural voices telling you that the American people, who are bonded together by many different cords of affection, can't live together like members of the same family. Don't let those voices convince you that you are no longer able to continue guarding their mutual happiness. Don't let them tell you that you can no longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, flourishing country. Don't listen to the voices complaining that the government I'm recommending is some strange, novel thing in the political world. Don't listen to their divisive grumbling that this kind of government is so bizarre that even the wildest imagination has never thought up such a thing, or that this kind of government recklessly attempts the impossible. No, my countrymen, close your ears and refuse to listen to such immoral opinions. Harden your hearts against the poison in such sentiments.
We Americans have kindred blood in our veins. Our blood was mingled when we shed it to defend our sacred rights. This shared blood sanctifies our Union, and should make us dread ever becoming strangers to each other, or rivals, or enemies. If any strange and unfamiliar novelty is supposed to be avoided, then believe me -- the most alarming novelty of all, the wildest and most reckless of all attempts, is the idea of tearing our Union into pieces in order to protect our liberties and promote our happiness. Why should we reject the experimental concept of an extended Republic simply because it might be a new idea? Isn't it the glory of the American people that, although we have respected the opinions of ancient times and other nations, we have never blindly worshiped antiquity, or traditions, or names so much that we ignored our own good sense, the knowledge of our own unique situation, and the lessons we've learned from our own experience? Future generations will be grateful for our courageous spirit because there will be so many innovations in America that favor personal rights and public happiness, and the whole world will appreciate our example.
What if the leaders of the Revolution hadn't taken the important step they took simply because it had never been done before? What if they didn't even try to establish a government that had no exact model to follow? Our people might, at this very moment, be counted among the sorrowful victims of confused advice. At best, we would have been toiling under the weight of other types of government that have crushed the liberties of people in other parts of the world. But fortunately for America -- and, hopefully, fortunately for the whole human race -- we are pursuing a new course, a more noble course. The leaders of the Revolution accomplished a transformation that has no parallel in the entire history of mankind. They raised the structure of a government that doesn't have a model like it anywhere in the world. They formed the plan for a great Union that depends on our successors to improve and preserve. Perhaps their plan has a few flaws -- but the amazing thing is how few flaws there are! Perhaps the most glaring flaws are in the way they originally structured the Union [in the Articles of Confederation], but that was the part of the plan that was the most difficult to create. This improved plan is the great work that was done by your Constitutional Convention, and it is up to you to consider and decide whether to approve it or not.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, January-February 2019
All Federalist Paper paraphrases
by James Madison, November 30, 1787.
To: the people of New York,
We have seen how much we need a Union to act as a strong defense against foreign enemies, to conserve peace among ourselves, to guard our trade and other common interests, to counter the kinds of militaries that overthrew liberties in Europe, and to counteract the kinds of factions that destroyed other pure democracies and show signs of threatening our own democracy. The only thing left to consider in this series of questions is to address the large size of the country. I will make a few observations about this, since those who oppose the new Constitution are taking advantage of the concern about how large a sphere a Republican government can manage. By citing imaginary problems, they hope to make up for having no solid objections.
Previous articles have already addressed the mistaken notion that a Republican government can only work in a small area. I will only add that this mistaken notion seems to come from a confusion between a Republic and a democracy, and from applying logic about the nature of a democracy to a Republic. The distinction between the two was also explained in a previous article. Basically, it is this: in a pure democracy, all the people meet and take care of the government in person. In a Republic, they delegate that to representatives and deputies. That means that a democracy must be limited to a small geographical area, but a Republic can extend over a large region.
There is not only that unintentional confusion. There is also the deception from some famous writers whose articles have influenced the public's opinions. Since those writers have lived under an absolute or limited monarchy, they have tried to magnify the advantages and minimize the evils of that type of government by comparing and contrasting the corruption and flaws of a Republic -- but they're citing examples of unstable democracies from ancient Greece and modern Italy to make their point! By confusing the labels, it's been easy for them to blame their observations of violent democracies on a Republican form of government. Not only that, but their observations are based on a small number of people living in a small geographical area.
That kind of fallacy is easy to miss, since most ancient popular forms of government were democratic governments. Even in modern Europe, from whom we get the noble principle of representation, there is no example of a democracy that is both a pure democracy and also founded on the principle of representation. Perhaps Europe has the distinction of discovering the efficient organized plan of government where the will of the largest political body is centralized, and its energy is put to work on whatever project the public good needs. Well, America has a distinction, too -- the distinction of discovering the foundation of absolute and large Republics. It is tragic that any of America's citizens would want to deprive her of the distinction of demonstrating how fully efficient a comprehensive Republic would be simply because they don't want to ratify the new Constitution.
What is democracy's natural limit? It is the distance from the central point to however far away the furthest citizens will be able to meet as often as they need in order to do their functions, and it is limited to however many people are able to carry out those functions. On the other hand, the natural limit of a Republic is the distance from the central point to however far away the representatives can meet as often as they need to in order to carry out their public services. Does the United States exceed this distance? The Atlantic coast is the longest side of the Union, yet during the last thirteen years, the representatives of the different states have almost always been assembled. Even the representatives from the farthest states haven't had to miss any more meetings than those who live near Congress.
In order to form a more accurate opinion of this, let's consider the actual dimensions of the country. The peace treaty [with Great Britain] set these boundaries: on the east, the Atlantic Ocean is the border. On the south, the latitude of 31 degrees is the border. The Mississippi River is the western border, and the north's border is an irregular line that meanders between the 42nd and 45th degree of latitude. The southern part of Lake Erie is below that latitude [and thus belongs to the US]. If we calculate the distance between the north and south border, it comes to 764.5 to 973 miles, depending on whether you use the 42nd or 45th degree of latitude. Let's use a number in between: 868.75 miles from north to south. The average distance from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River is probably no more than 750 miles. Since we're about the same size as many European countries, it seems like we could demonstrate how feasible our system could work. Our country isn't much larger than Germany, and they have a diet [official assembly] that meets almost continually. Poland, before they were recently broken up, was about the same size, and they also had a system of government requiring a diet to meet almost continually. Great Britain is smaller, but representatives from the very northernmost part of the country have just as far to travel to their parliamentary meetings as representatives from even the most remote areas of the United States.
Thus, distance for representatives doesn't appear to be a problem, but there are other observations that make a Republic seem even more advantageous.
For one thing, the federal government won't be the only one with the power to make and enforce laws. Its jurisdiction [area of authority] is limited to specific listed matters -- matters that concern everyone in the entire Republic, but that can't be handled by any single state. The state governments, which are able to take care of all the other matters that can be handled at a more local level, will continue to keep their proper authority and activity. If the Constitutional Convention had even suggested dissolving the separate state governments, then those who oppose the Constitution would have reasons for objecting -- although it would be easy to show that even if state governments were dissolved, the federal government would be forced to reinstate them in their appropriate jurisdiction simply out of self-preservation.
Second, the primary purpose of the federal Constitution is to protect the union of the original thirteen states that are already operating smoothly. We'd also like to add other States that might rise up around them or among them, and we think they will be just as viable. The arrangements that might be necessary for all the territories on our northwestern frontier [around the Great Lakes] will have to be left to those who are more equal to the task because of their further discoveries and experience.
Third, communication throughout the Union will be made much easier with new improvements that a federal government can implement. Roads will be streamlined and kept in better condition. Accommodations for people who are traveling will be more plentiful and comfortable. Navigation on our eastern side will be opened up throughout all thirteen States. Communication between the Western districts and Eastern districts, and between parts of those districts, will be made much easier by using all of the rivers that are so naturally plentiful and intersect the country and can easily be connected to make uninterrupted waterways.
Fourth, and even more important, since almost every State has a frontier on one of its borders, even those on the interior are motivated to make some sacrifices in order to defend the borders and protect their general population from invasion. Similarly, States that lie farthest away from the heart of the Union might be in a position to enjoy less of the benefits the government will have to offer, but they'll also be the closest to foreign nations [and more vulnerable to invasion]. They will have a greater need for the strength and resources of the Union. It might be inconvenient for faraway Georgia, or other States on our western or northern borders, to send representatives all the way to the seat of government. But it would be even more inconvenient for them to have to struggle alone against an invading army, or even to maintain whatever defensive precautions might be needed if their area is in continual danger of attack. So those States might not benefit from a Union in some ways, but they would benefit in other ways. Thus, everything would balance out.
My fellow citizens, I submit these considerations because I am completely confident that the good sense you have shown so often in your decisions before will allow you to examine them seriously. I am sure that you will never allow challenges, no matter how daunting they may seem, or how trendy the misconception they're founded on, to drive you into the gloomy and perilous scene that those promoting disunion want to take you to. Don't listen to the unnatural voices telling you that the American people, who are bonded together by many different cords of affection, can't live together like members of the same family. Don't let those voices convince you that you are no longer able to continue guarding their mutual happiness. Don't let them tell you that you can no longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, flourishing country. Don't listen to the voices complaining that the government I'm recommending is some strange, novel thing in the political world. Don't listen to their divisive grumbling that this kind of government is so bizarre that even the wildest imagination has never thought up such a thing, or that this kind of government recklessly attempts the impossible. No, my countrymen, close your ears and refuse to listen to such immoral opinions. Harden your hearts against the poison in such sentiments.
We Americans have kindred blood in our veins. Our blood was mingled when we shed it to defend our sacred rights. This shared blood sanctifies our Union, and should make us dread ever becoming strangers to each other, or rivals, or enemies. If any strange and unfamiliar novelty is supposed to be avoided, then believe me -- the most alarming novelty of all, the wildest and most reckless of all attempts, is the idea of tearing our Union into pieces in order to protect our liberties and promote our happiness. Why should we reject the experimental concept of an extended Republic simply because it might be a new idea? Isn't it the glory of the American people that, although we have respected the opinions of ancient times and other nations, we have never blindly worshiped antiquity, or traditions, or names so much that we ignored our own good sense, the knowledge of our own unique situation, and the lessons we've learned from our own experience? Future generations will be grateful for our courageous spirit because there will be so many innovations in America that favor personal rights and public happiness, and the whole world will appreciate our example.
What if the leaders of the Revolution hadn't taken the important step they took simply because it had never been done before? What if they didn't even try to establish a government that had no exact model to follow? Our people might, at this very moment, be counted among the sorrowful victims of confused advice. At best, we would have been toiling under the weight of other types of government that have crushed the liberties of people in other parts of the world. But fortunately for America -- and, hopefully, fortunately for the whole human race -- we are pursuing a new course, a more noble course. The leaders of the Revolution accomplished a transformation that has no parallel in the entire history of mankind. They raised the structure of a government that doesn't have a model like it anywhere in the world. They formed the plan for a great Union that depends on our successors to improve and preserve. Perhaps their plan has a few flaws -- but the amazing thing is how few flaws there are! Perhaps the most glaring flaws are in the way they originally structured the Union [in the Articles of Confederation], but that was the part of the plan that was the most difficult to create. This improved plan is the great work that was done by your Constitutional Convention, and it is up to you to consider and decide whether to approve it or not.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, January-February 2019
All Federalist Paper paraphrases
Comments
Post a Comment