The Same Subject Continued
(The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union)
For the Independent Journal.
Wednesday, December 5, 1787


To the People of the State of New York:

AN OBJECTION, of a nature different from that which has been stated and answered, in my last address, may perhaps be
likewise urged against the principle of legislation for the individual citizens of America. It may be said that it would tend to
render the government of the Union too powerful, and to enable it to absorb those residuary authorities, which it might be
judged proper to leave with the States for local purposes. Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any
reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons entrusted with the
administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The
regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition. Commerce,
finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion;
and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The
administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns
of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable
cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp
the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it
would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance,
or to the splendor of the national government.

But let it be admitted, for argument's sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that
disposition; still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other
words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite. It will always be far
more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach
upon the State authorities. The proof of this proposition turns upon the greater degree of influence which the State
governments if they administer their affairs with uprightness and prudence, will generally possess over the people; a
circumstance which at the same time teaches us that there is an inherent and intrinsic weakness in all federal constitutions;
and that too much pains cannot be taken in their organization, to give them all the force which is compatible with the
principles of liberty.

The superiority of influence in favor of the particular governments would result partly from the diffusive construction of the
national government, but chiefly from the nature of the objects to which the attention of the State administrations would be

It is a known fact in human nature, that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of
the object. Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood
than to the community at large, the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments
than towards the government of the Union; unless the force of that principle should be destroyed by a much better
administration of the latter.

This strong propensity of the human heart would find powerful auxiliaries in the objects of State regulation.

The variety of more minute interests, which will necessarily fall under the superintendence of the local administrations, and
which will form so many rivulets of influence, running through every part of the society, cannot be particularized, without
involving a detail too tedious and uninteresting to compensate for the instruction it might afford.

There is one transcendent advantage belonging to the province of the State governments, which alone suffices to place the
matter in a clear and satisfactory light, -- I mean the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice. This, of all others,
is the most powerful, most universal, and most attractive source of popular obedience and attachment. It is that which, being
the immediate and visible guardian of life and property, having its benefits and its terrors in constant activity before the public
eye, regulating all those personal interests and familiar concerns to which the sensibility of individuals is more immediately
awake, contributes, more than any other circumstance, to impressing upon the minds of the people, affection, esteem, and
reverence towards the government. This great cement of society, which will diffuse itself almost wholly through the
channels of the particular governments, independent of all other causes of influence, would insure them so decided an empire
over their respective citizens as to render them at all times a complete counterpoise, and, not infrequently, dangerous rivals to
the power of the Union.

The operations of the national government, on the other hand, falling less immediately under the observation of the mass of
the citizens, the benefits derived from it will chiefly be perceived and attended to by speculative men. Relating to more
general interests, they will be less apt to come home to the feelings of the people; and, in proportion, less likely to inspire an
habitual sense of obligation, and an active sentiment of attachment.

The reasoning on this head has been abundantly exemplified by the experience of all federal constitutions with which we are
acquainted, and of all others which have borne the least analogy to them.

Though the ancient feudal systems were not, strictly speaking, confederacies, yet they partook of the nature of that species
of association. There was a common head, chieftain, or sovereign, whose authority extended over the whole nation; and a
number of subordinate vassals, or feudatories, who had large portions of land allotted to them, and numerous trains of
INFERIOR vassals or retainers, who occupied and cultivated that land upon the tenure of fealty or obedience, to the persons
of whom they held it. Each principal vassal was a kind of sovereign, within his particular demesnes. The consequences of
this situation were a continual opposition to authority of the sovereign, and frequent wars between the great barons or chief
feudatories themselves. The power of the head of the nation was commonly too weak, either to preserve the public peace, or
to protect the people against the oppressions of their immediate lords. This period of European affairs is emphatically styled
by historians, the times of feudal anarchy.

When the sovereign happened to be a man of vigorous and warlike temper and of superior abilities, he would acquire a
personal weight and influence, which answered, for the time, the purpose of a more regular authority. But in general, the
power of the barons triumphed over that of the prince; and in many instances his dominion was entirely thrown off, and the
great fiefs were erected into independent principalities or States. In those instances in which the monarch finally prevailed
over his vassals, his success was chiefly owing to the tyranny of those vassals over their dependents. The barons, or nobles,
equally the enemies of the sovereign and the oppressors of the common people, were dreaded and detested by both; till
mutual danger and mutual interest effected a union between them fatal to the power of the aristocracy. Had the nobles, by a
conduct of clemency and justice, preserved the fidelity and devotion of their retainers and followers, the contests between
them and the prince must almost always have ended in their favor, and in the abridgment or subversion of the royal authority.

This is not an assertion founded merely in speculation or conjecture. Among other illustrations of its truth which might be
cited, Scotland will furnish a cogent example. The spirit of clanship which was, at an early day, introduced into that
kingdom, uniting the nobles and their dependants by ties equivalent to those of kindred, rendered the aristocracy a constant
overmatch for the power of the monarch, till the incorporation with England subdued its fierce and ungovernable spirit, and
reduced it within those rules of subordination which a more rational and more energetic system of civil polity had previously
established in the latter kingdom.

The separate governments in a confederacy may aptly be compared with the feudal baronies; with this advantage in their
favor, that from the reasons already explained, they will generally possess the confidence and good-will of the people, and
with so important a support, will be able effectually to oppose all encroachments of the national government. It will be well if
they are not able to counteract its legitimate and necessary authority. The points of similitude consist in the rivalship of
power, applicable to both, and in the CONCENTRATION of large portions of the strength of the community into particular
DEPOSITORIES, in one case at the disposal of individuals, in the other case at the disposal of political bodies.

A concise review of the events that have attended confederate governments will further illustrate this important doctrine; an
inattention to which has been the great source of our political mistakes, and has given our jealousy a direction to the wrong
side. This review shall form the subject of some ensuing papers.

Text supplied by
Project Gutenberg
The Constitution Society
& The Avalon Project
Philosophy of
Socialism in America

"The struggle of History is not
between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat; it is between government
and the governed."

Jerry McDaniel
The Illinois Conservative