Federalist 46 Paraphrased
Federalist No. 46 - State Governments vs Federal Governments; Militia Protects from Federal Government paraphrased into modern English
by James Madison, Jan 29, 1788
To: the People of the State of New York,
I will continue the subject of the last Federalist Paper by asking which the people are more likely to prefer and support -- the federal government, or the State governments? Although they have different methods of being elected, both are considerably dependent on the multitude of US citizens. I'll assume this is true of the federal government, and provide evidence of that in another Paper. The fact is, the federal and State governments are actually different representatives and guardians of the people, with different authorities, designed for different purposes. Opponents of the proposed Constitution seem to have forgotten the people altogether in their arguments of this subject. They seem to view these different governments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as administrations with no oversight as they attempt to wrest power away from each other. But these critics have forgotten that there is oversight. They need to be reminded that there is an ultimate authority in all branches of these governments: the people themselves. The battle to see which of the governments will be able to increase its jurisdiction at the expense of the other one isn't dependent on the competitive ambition or clever discourse of either of them. For the sake of truth, as well as decency, this battle should be decided based on opinions and approval of the voting citizens.
Many considerations in addition to the ones mentioned in the previous Federalist Paper, make it clear that most people will naturally favor their own State government over the federal government. There's more scope for local citizens to be involved as elected officials and rise to success. Once in office, they'll be able to repay their supporters with newly created positions and other rewards. By managing these, the personal interests of the local people will be regulated and taken care of. The people will be more familiar with the details of the politics at home, and the State politicians will tend to be personally connected with their constituents because they're more likely to be family, friends, and party supporters. It's only natural that people will tend to be more attached to their State government.
Our own experience shows this preference. During the Revolutionary War, and even more so when paper money was being issued for credit, the federal government under the Articles of Confederation -- a much less effective system than the Constitution -- was as active and important as it will ever likely be. The federal government was also involved in actions geared to protecting everything that was dear, and trying to obtain whatever its people might want. Even so, once the initial enthusiasm for the early Congress (1781) had passed, the people turned their focus and loyalty back to their own State governments. The federal Congress was no longer their active interest. Men who wanted to rise in local politics took advantage of this new State preoccupation of their fellow citizens to oppose enlarging the power of the federal government.
If people ever begin to prefer the federal government over their own State governments, that could only mean that the government was so much better managed under the new Constitution that it overcame all their previous attitudes. In that case, the people should be allowed to have confidence in a system that has earned their trust. And even if that happens and the people begin to prefer federal government, State governments have nothing to worry about because a federal government can only be effectively carried out within a limited sphere.
I want to compare federal and State governments from two more angles: their loyalties, and the means they have to resist and frustrate what each other tries to do.
I've already shown how federal politicians will be more dependent on State politicians than State politicians will be on federal politicians. I've shown that the people themselves will be more focused on their State governments than on the federal governments, yet both are dependent on the people. When we consider how this will influence them, it seems clear that State governments will have a clear advantage, especially in one distinct and significant way: politicians working in the federal government will carry this preferred status from their home States into the federal government, but State politicians will rarely carry an inclination towards the federal government into their State politics. It will be more common for members of Congress to have a local spirit than for a national spirit to pervade individual State legislatures. As we all know, a large percentage of errors committed by State politicians comes from their tendency to sacrifice what's permanently best for the whole State in favor of the specific and separate opinions of the counties or districts they represent. And if politicians aren't able to broaden their policy enough to include the welfare of the entire State, how can anyone imagine that politicians will be able to put the collective prosperity, dignity, and respectability of the entire Union ahead of the bias towards the State they love, and the voters who entrust them with their opinions? That's why local State politicians will tend not to put national interests ahead of their own State interests. The more likely concern is thar members of Congress will be too focused on their own local interests. Individual States will be like counties and districts are to State politicians. They will tend to vote on federal policies based, not on national prosperity and happiness, but on how the policy will affect the perspective, interests, and activities of the voters back home. What spirit has generally characterized the proceedings of Congress? If we look through their journals and listen to what Congressmen have said in sessions, it's clear that federal politicians have too often put their own States' interests ahead of the common national interest. For every inappropriate sacrifice that has been made of individual States in favor of the federal government, there have been hundreds of policies passed in favor of States because of politicians' excessive focus on their own States, biases, interests, and opinions. In pointing out these observations, I don't mean to suggest that the proposed federal government under the new Constitution won't adopt a broader plan than the current government, or that its interests will be as limited as the views of State legislatures. I think it will take a bit of the spirit of both; thus, they'll be reluctant to invade the rights of individual States or overstep the authority of the State governments. State governments that try to increase their own power by curtailing authority from the federal government will be neutralized by the other States.
Even if we admit that the federal government will be just as tempted as State governments to increase its power beyond its proper limits, State governments will still be able to block such infringements. If one of the States passed a law that was opposed to the federal government but was popular in that State and didn't blatantly violate the oaths of the State's officials, it would be enacted immediately by local officials who only had to answer to that State. The objection of the federal government, or the intervention of federal officials, would only arouse the passion of all parties within the State. The damage wouldn't be easy to undo without using force, and nobody wants to resort to that. But, on the other hand, if the federal government passed an unfair law that was unpopular in some States, which would happen frequently, or even if they passed a reasonable law that some States objected to, which would inevitably happens sometimes, the States have powerful means to protest. The agitation and hostility of the people, their refusal to cooperate with federal officials, the disapproval of the governor, and the confusion caused by legislative strategies to enforce the law that would often be attached to these occasions, would cause difficulties in any State. In a large State, it would seriously hinder the enforcement of that law. If a few States joined together in opposition, they could create a hindrance that the federal government would not want to have to deal with.
If the federal government tried any aggressive encroachments on the authority of the States, it wouldn't be just a few States rising in opposition. There would be warnings of general alarm across the nation. Every State government would join the common cause, and States would work together to plan their resistance. They would all be inspired and work together with one spirit. The same combination that united the colonies to fight British oppression would work against oppression from the federal government. If the federal government refused to back down, the States would fight back like they did in the Revolutionary War. But the federal government wouldn't dare try anything so extreme. During the Revolutionary War, one part of the British Empire was used against another part [the colonists]. The larger part invaded the rights of the smaller part. It was an unfair and unwise attempt, but when reflected on, it's not surprising that they would try to get away with it. But what about a case where it was the federal government against the State governments? Who would be fighting against whom? A few representatives would be fighting against the very people they're supposed to be representing. Or maybe the federal representatives would be fighting against thirteen sets of State representatives, with the people themselves on the side of their individual States.
The only criticism left for those who oppose the new Constitution and claim that it will result in the downfall of the State governments is the threat that the federal government will collect an army to force the States to give up power. Surely everything described in this Federalist Paper is enough to dispel that fear. It's not likely that the people and the State legislators would elect a succession of federal politicians who would betray them both for a long enough time to allow them to put their plans into operation. It's inconceivable that these traitors would continue to be re-elected for enough consecutive terms to execute a systematic plan to establish a military force to increase their own power, while the people and the States quietly and passively watch the growing danger and continue to supply the means that will be the cause of their own destruction. The very idea sounds as absurd as the dreams of a jealous madman, or the conspiracy theories of a misguided zealot, rather than the sensible concerns of a genuine patriot. But, as extreme as it sounds, let's imagine such a scenario. Let's say a regular army is formed as large as our country can sustain. Imagine that it's entirely under the command and wishes of the federal government. Even in such a case, the States, having the citizens on their side, would be able to resist such an army. Even the largest standing army that a country can maintain isn't greater than one hundredth of the country's entire population, or one twenty-fifth of those who are able to handle a weapon. In the United States, that works out to 25,000-30,000 men. Against this army would be a militia [able-bodied men between 17 and 45 years of age] of almost half a million men bearing weapons, and these would be led by officers selected by the men themselves. This militia would be fighting for their very liberty, combined and managed by State governments who have their loyalty and confidence. It's doubtful that any regular army could defeat this kind of militia. Those who remember the last time we successfully fought against the British will see how unlikely it is. The American people, unlike the people of most other nations, are armed. This advantage, as well as the individual State governments, and the militia's appointed officers, forms a barrier against the federal government's attempts to gain too much control. This is a stronger protection than any simple government could overcome. The armies in the countries of Europe are as large as their taxes can maintain, yet those countries are still afraid to trust the people with weapons. And even if those people had weapons, that might not be enough for them to resist their oppressors. But if they also had local governments that they themselves chose, to lead the militia, which was headed by officers selected by the militia, to accomplish the will of the people, and if the local governments were loyal to the people and the militia -- such a force would be more than able to overturn every tyrant in Europe, no matter how strong an army was defending him. The citizens of America are free and brave. Let's not insult them by presuming they would be less capable of defending rights they already proudly possess than oppressed citizens of countries would be in trying to wrench their rights from the hands of their dictators. Let's not insult them by imagining they would ever blindly submit to one corrupt law after another until they ended up in a position of subjection and had to fight to gain back their rights.
My point can be summarized very simply and conclusively. Either the way the federal government has been planned will make it dependent enough on the people, or it won't. One hypothesis is that its dependence on the people will discourage it from planning anything that will be hateful to the voters. The other hypothesis is that the people won't put much confidence in it, but the States, which will have the people's support, will easily defeat any schemes the federal government might try to usurp more power.
In conclusion, this Federalist Paper and the last one give enough evidence to assure that the powers the new Constitution will give to the federal government are no more imposing than the powers given to the various States. In fact, the very purpose of those powers is to accomplish the needs of the Union. All of the panic stirred up after Friday's reports that there was some kind of planned destruction of the State governments afoot must have been based on nothing more than the unfounded fears of those who wrote those reports.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, June 2020
All Federalist Paper Paraphrases
by James Madison, Jan 29, 1788
To: the People of the State of New York,
I will continue the subject of the last Federalist Paper by asking which the people are more likely to prefer and support -- the federal government, or the State governments? Although they have different methods of being elected, both are considerably dependent on the multitude of US citizens. I'll assume this is true of the federal government, and provide evidence of that in another Paper. The fact is, the federal and State governments are actually different representatives and guardians of the people, with different authorities, designed for different purposes. Opponents of the proposed Constitution seem to have forgotten the people altogether in their arguments of this subject. They seem to view these different governments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as administrations with no oversight as they attempt to wrest power away from each other. But these critics have forgotten that there is oversight. They need to be reminded that there is an ultimate authority in all branches of these governments: the people themselves. The battle to see which of the governments will be able to increase its jurisdiction at the expense of the other one isn't dependent on the competitive ambition or clever discourse of either of them. For the sake of truth, as well as decency, this battle should be decided based on opinions and approval of the voting citizens.
Many considerations in addition to the ones mentioned in the previous Federalist Paper, make it clear that most people will naturally favor their own State government over the federal government. There's more scope for local citizens to be involved as elected officials and rise to success. Once in office, they'll be able to repay their supporters with newly created positions and other rewards. By managing these, the personal interests of the local people will be regulated and taken care of. The people will be more familiar with the details of the politics at home, and the State politicians will tend to be personally connected with their constituents because they're more likely to be family, friends, and party supporters. It's only natural that people will tend to be more attached to their State government.
Our own experience shows this preference. During the Revolutionary War, and even more so when paper money was being issued for credit, the federal government under the Articles of Confederation -- a much less effective system than the Constitution -- was as active and important as it will ever likely be. The federal government was also involved in actions geared to protecting everything that was dear, and trying to obtain whatever its people might want. Even so, once the initial enthusiasm for the early Congress (1781) had passed, the people turned their focus and loyalty back to their own State governments. The federal Congress was no longer their active interest. Men who wanted to rise in local politics took advantage of this new State preoccupation of their fellow citizens to oppose enlarging the power of the federal government.
If people ever begin to prefer the federal government over their own State governments, that could only mean that the government was so much better managed under the new Constitution that it overcame all their previous attitudes. In that case, the people should be allowed to have confidence in a system that has earned their trust. And even if that happens and the people begin to prefer federal government, State governments have nothing to worry about because a federal government can only be effectively carried out within a limited sphere.
I want to compare federal and State governments from two more angles: their loyalties, and the means they have to resist and frustrate what each other tries to do.
I've already shown how federal politicians will be more dependent on State politicians than State politicians will be on federal politicians. I've shown that the people themselves will be more focused on their State governments than on the federal governments, yet both are dependent on the people. When we consider how this will influence them, it seems clear that State governments will have a clear advantage, especially in one distinct and significant way: politicians working in the federal government will carry this preferred status from their home States into the federal government, but State politicians will rarely carry an inclination towards the federal government into their State politics. It will be more common for members of Congress to have a local spirit than for a national spirit to pervade individual State legislatures. As we all know, a large percentage of errors committed by State politicians comes from their tendency to sacrifice what's permanently best for the whole State in favor of the specific and separate opinions of the counties or districts they represent. And if politicians aren't able to broaden their policy enough to include the welfare of the entire State, how can anyone imagine that politicians will be able to put the collective prosperity, dignity, and respectability of the entire Union ahead of the bias towards the State they love, and the voters who entrust them with their opinions? That's why local State politicians will tend not to put national interests ahead of their own State interests. The more likely concern is thar members of Congress will be too focused on their own local interests. Individual States will be like counties and districts are to State politicians. They will tend to vote on federal policies based, not on national prosperity and happiness, but on how the policy will affect the perspective, interests, and activities of the voters back home. What spirit has generally characterized the proceedings of Congress? If we look through their journals and listen to what Congressmen have said in sessions, it's clear that federal politicians have too often put their own States' interests ahead of the common national interest. For every inappropriate sacrifice that has been made of individual States in favor of the federal government, there have been hundreds of policies passed in favor of States because of politicians' excessive focus on their own States, biases, interests, and opinions. In pointing out these observations, I don't mean to suggest that the proposed federal government under the new Constitution won't adopt a broader plan than the current government, or that its interests will be as limited as the views of State legislatures. I think it will take a bit of the spirit of both; thus, they'll be reluctant to invade the rights of individual States or overstep the authority of the State governments. State governments that try to increase their own power by curtailing authority from the federal government will be neutralized by the other States.
Even if we admit that the federal government will be just as tempted as State governments to increase its power beyond its proper limits, State governments will still be able to block such infringements. If one of the States passed a law that was opposed to the federal government but was popular in that State and didn't blatantly violate the oaths of the State's officials, it would be enacted immediately by local officials who only had to answer to that State. The objection of the federal government, or the intervention of federal officials, would only arouse the passion of all parties within the State. The damage wouldn't be easy to undo without using force, and nobody wants to resort to that. But, on the other hand, if the federal government passed an unfair law that was unpopular in some States, which would happen frequently, or even if they passed a reasonable law that some States objected to, which would inevitably happens sometimes, the States have powerful means to protest. The agitation and hostility of the people, their refusal to cooperate with federal officials, the disapproval of the governor, and the confusion caused by legislative strategies to enforce the law that would often be attached to these occasions, would cause difficulties in any State. In a large State, it would seriously hinder the enforcement of that law. If a few States joined together in opposition, they could create a hindrance that the federal government would not want to have to deal with.
If the federal government tried any aggressive encroachments on the authority of the States, it wouldn't be just a few States rising in opposition. There would be warnings of general alarm across the nation. Every State government would join the common cause, and States would work together to plan their resistance. They would all be inspired and work together with one spirit. The same combination that united the colonies to fight British oppression would work against oppression from the federal government. If the federal government refused to back down, the States would fight back like they did in the Revolutionary War. But the federal government wouldn't dare try anything so extreme. During the Revolutionary War, one part of the British Empire was used against another part [the colonists]. The larger part invaded the rights of the smaller part. It was an unfair and unwise attempt, but when reflected on, it's not surprising that they would try to get away with it. But what about a case where it was the federal government against the State governments? Who would be fighting against whom? A few representatives would be fighting against the very people they're supposed to be representing. Or maybe the federal representatives would be fighting against thirteen sets of State representatives, with the people themselves on the side of their individual States.
The only criticism left for those who oppose the new Constitution and claim that it will result in the downfall of the State governments is the threat that the federal government will collect an army to force the States to give up power. Surely everything described in this Federalist Paper is enough to dispel that fear. It's not likely that the people and the State legislators would elect a succession of federal politicians who would betray them both for a long enough time to allow them to put their plans into operation. It's inconceivable that these traitors would continue to be re-elected for enough consecutive terms to execute a systematic plan to establish a military force to increase their own power, while the people and the States quietly and passively watch the growing danger and continue to supply the means that will be the cause of their own destruction. The very idea sounds as absurd as the dreams of a jealous madman, or the conspiracy theories of a misguided zealot, rather than the sensible concerns of a genuine patriot. But, as extreme as it sounds, let's imagine such a scenario. Let's say a regular army is formed as large as our country can sustain. Imagine that it's entirely under the command and wishes of the federal government. Even in such a case, the States, having the citizens on their side, would be able to resist such an army. Even the largest standing army that a country can maintain isn't greater than one hundredth of the country's entire population, or one twenty-fifth of those who are able to handle a weapon. In the United States, that works out to 25,000-30,000 men. Against this army would be a militia [able-bodied men between 17 and 45 years of age] of almost half a million men bearing weapons, and these would be led by officers selected by the men themselves. This militia would be fighting for their very liberty, combined and managed by State governments who have their loyalty and confidence. It's doubtful that any regular army could defeat this kind of militia. Those who remember the last time we successfully fought against the British will see how unlikely it is. The American people, unlike the people of most other nations, are armed. This advantage, as well as the individual State governments, and the militia's appointed officers, forms a barrier against the federal government's attempts to gain too much control. This is a stronger protection than any simple government could overcome. The armies in the countries of Europe are as large as their taxes can maintain, yet those countries are still afraid to trust the people with weapons. And even if those people had weapons, that might not be enough for them to resist their oppressors. But if they also had local governments that they themselves chose, to lead the militia, which was headed by officers selected by the militia, to accomplish the will of the people, and if the local governments were loyal to the people and the militia -- such a force would be more than able to overturn every tyrant in Europe, no matter how strong an army was defending him. The citizens of America are free and brave. Let's not insult them by presuming they would be less capable of defending rights they already proudly possess than oppressed citizens of countries would be in trying to wrench their rights from the hands of their dictators. Let's not insult them by imagining they would ever blindly submit to one corrupt law after another until they ended up in a position of subjection and had to fight to gain back their rights.
My point can be summarized very simply and conclusively. Either the way the federal government has been planned will make it dependent enough on the people, or it won't. One hypothesis is that its dependence on the people will discourage it from planning anything that will be hateful to the voters. The other hypothesis is that the people won't put much confidence in it, but the States, which will have the people's support, will easily defeat any schemes the federal government might try to usurp more power.
In conclusion, this Federalist Paper and the last one give enough evidence to assure that the powers the new Constitution will give to the federal government are no more imposing than the powers given to the various States. In fact, the very purpose of those powers is to accomplish the needs of the Union. All of the panic stirred up after Friday's reports that there was some kind of planned destruction of the State governments afoot must have been based on nothing more than the unfounded fears of those who wrote those reports.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, June 2020
All Federalist Paper Paraphrases
Comments
Post a Comment