FEDERALIST #10 IS A MONUMENT TO STUPIDITY

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

As if oppression by powerful central governments, common around the world and throughout history, is something the oppressed voluntarily choose and accept. The whole danger of powerful central governments is that they have the power to oppress people who may or may not wish to be oppressed. It may not happen all at once. It can be, what’s the phrase, a long train of abuses that pile up over time. The people can be debased gradually. The government can gain enough control to make resisitance futile, or at least very difficult. How could Madison not understand this? And what if those who favor liberty are outnumbered by obnoxious forces who accept and promote abuses of federal power?

People will feel more strongly attached to their state than to the national government, which is limited in scope.

Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline.

Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever. It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens.

If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.

Here, Madison contradicts himself. He first claims that the people will feel more attached to their state government than to the federal government. But then he argues that, hey, if the people think that the Feds do a better job of running things, so be it. Nothing to worry about, says Madison, because Fedzilla is limited in its sphere.

The officeholders of Fedzilla will not be inclined to usurp State power, but will, with a sense of parochialism, favor their state’s interests over Federal interests.

The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other.

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members.

This is laughable. Madison totally ignores the potential of using Fedzilla to serve parochial interests at the expense of state authority. He also ignores the issue of corruption, where ignoble characters choose neither federal nor state interest, but rather their own self-interest, or the interest of their corrupt allies who finance and support them. He probably didn’t realize how accurate he was when he says states will be as counties are to the state. True and sad.

If Fedzilla exceeds its authority, the States will easily frustrate the encroachment. The advantage in such cases will lie with the states. An angry state would nullify the encroachment.

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

Madison seems to suggest that a state, or collection of states, would effectively defend against encroachment through nullification, and the Feds would surely not want such a fight. Is there a more ridiculous argument to be made? I might point out that a few decades later, when the Nullification crisis emerged, Madison came down AGAINST nullification: (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_2s43.html)

The supremacy clause effectively neutered the states. John Marshall took from them any power to decide constitutional questions. The feds were left to regulate themselves, absent forceful resistance.

If Fedzilla encroached on state power, all the states would rise up together as one.

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

Strange argument coming from the man who wrote in Federalist 10 that “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.” So in Federalist 10 he argues that the inability of the states to unite as one faction will be a positive, unifying safeguard, while in Federalist 46 he argues that the States will automatically unify and resist Federal power. Which one is it, Mr. Madison?

There is no danger of the Feds acquiring a standing army with sufficient power to subdue state militias. It will never happen. And even if it did, the state militias would be more powerful.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

This argument is ironic, considering that it was President James Madison who was the first to institute a professional, standing army. When he was frustrated in his war effort against Britain by militias who would not fight, guess which side he came down on? He further argues that militias will form an effective resistance against a standing army. But if the militias are ineffective and undependable, and if a standing, professional army is necessary and superior for making war, how can this be so?

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

Madison totally ignores several possibilities with which we are all too familiar. On the one hand, he presumes that the People will be able, through the ballot box, to reject and resist obnoxious federal power. How would the people have done that in this past election, between McCain and Obama? Two obnoxious choices, supported by two obnoxious parties, validated by centuries of obnoxious federal judges, etc. I’ve already argued above that the people or the states could find themselves with insufficient force to resist Fedzilla. Further, Madison ignores the possibility that agents of the same obnoxious parties would gain control of the state governments, so that there would in effect be no check on Fedzilla, as the state politicians would be co-conspirators. The people would be harassed by federal and state governments acting in concert—what then? There goes your check on the system. If the state governments are in on the scheme, who is going to call out the state militia to defend against the Federal force?

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

Where have we heard this one before? They’re stoking fear. They are the party of No. They are standing in the way of necessary Federal improvements, etc. Sorry Mr. Madison, you were dead wrong, and your opponents were correct. Consider yourself fortunate that you don’t have to live under this beast you gave life.

I'm always hearing conservative commentators hailing the genius of the framers. I hear them all the time recommending that everyone should read the Federalist Papers to understand the genius of the Framers. I used to think the same. Until I freed myself from romantic attachment, and began to simply evaluate the facts, the results of their creation, and the quality of their arguments.

Everyone should read the Federalist Papers, so that they can see how wrong the Framers were. Then they should read the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the Virginia Ratification debates, where Patrick Henry and George Mason took up the anti-federalist cause in point by point debate against Madison himself. Then they should look at our history and decide for themselves.

The anti-federalists were not correct in every prediction, but they got most of it right. And it didn't take long for the abuses...Chief Justice Marshall got the ball rolling as early as 1803.

What I find most ironic is that those who most loudly call for a “strict Constitutional form of government” are those who celebrate Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution at every turn.

If you don’t think the Constitution is a good platform for government, fine. However, at that point it cannot be used as a basis for your arguments for or against what the Federal government is doing.

What I find most ironic is that those who most loudly call for a “strict Constitutional form of government” are those who celebrate Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution at every turn.

People like to quote Henry's famous call to arms speech. I'm not sure they are as familiar with his position on the Constitution. The conservative movement constantly praises the Federalist papers, with nary a mention of the other side of those arguments.

My point is that you have to judge the Constitution on what has happened, not on what coulda-woulda-shoulda happened. The mere existance of the Federalist-Antifederalist debates demonstrates that the risks involved were well-known at the time. It's silly to say that if only people did this or didn't do that, it would work fine. It has to be judged based on what DID happen. It was an experiment, after all.

I have reached the point where I think "they need to follow the Constitution" arguments are in fact a silly waste of time. I mean, they are useful insofar as any successful means of restraining the feds to whatever extent possible should be tried. It's a fine tactic if you can use it to curb abuse by some small degree, but intellectually, it's pointless.

From the first Supreme Court on, from the First Congress on, the Pandora's box has been open. To try to "return to the Constitution" is a fool's errand. There is nothing to return to except the same flawed, overly powerful, overly centralized system that got us here in the first place.

One other point. One has to deal with what is. As I stated above, I think it makes perfect tactical sense to use whatever aspects of the Constitution are at your disposal to try to restrain Fedzilla, and preserve what freedoms we still possess. The anti-feds opposed the Constitution, then they served in the First Congress and amended it with the Bill of Rights. You have to work within the system to get the best available outcome, even if you would rather see the system abolished.

Are you proposing a new Constitution? If so, how will a people that is so used to nanny-statism react to the argument of self reliance and personal responsibility that you will probably (just guessing)propose? Are you saying that all is lost?

Both sides were genius.

But both sides were not correct. 2+2 cannot equal 4 and 5 simultaneously.

Both sides were genius. And their passions led to the compromise that became our constitution.

That's not correct. The antifeds were simply outnumbered, and lost the vote. It wasn't compromise--it was political defeat.

That if followed,

There's that "if only" again. If only I were more handsome, I'd be more successful. If only I had superpowers, I could fly to the moon. If only.

Those are good points, but there are some others to consider as well.

The Constitution has never been the handcuffs on the Federal government that many would like. As you point out with the 1803 mention, Jay and the Supreme Court overstepped what many would consider the boundries of the Court a mere 14 years after ratification.

But Washington, Adams, and Jefferson each stretched the powers of the Executive branch in their own ways well before that.

The real issue has always been Congress and it’s power of the purse. If Congress won’t fund it, nothing the President or the Court can do has any teeth. Congress has been getting progressively worse, but it was never “pure” even 150 years ago. And it isn’t just the fault of the “Washington insiders”. People, particularly on this site, like to quote Crockett’s speech about the fiscal responsibility of Congress, but many fail to realize that Crockett’s stand on that issue was so unpopular with his constituency that he lost re-election.

America has never been a “small government” people as a whole. The leadership of America has always had to make a devil’s deal to get things done while trying to not give too much power to the next guy who came along.

Just as the 1950’s are an idyllic mirage in the collective minds of many in America, so were the 1790’s to many “Constitutionalists” on this site.

But for all the predictions of the anti-federalists that have come true, the overall result is the most free, most prosperous, and most powerful nation on earth. And the fact that you and I can post our arguments for the world it see is a testament to that.

Are you proposing a new Constitution?

Not today. I have to peel myself away and go run errands, then to work :-)

I am proposing that our problems stem FROM the Constitution, and that any true progress towards real liberty won't occur until that is realized by enough people to make a change to something better.

If so, how will a people that is so used to nanny-statism react to the argument of self reliance and personal responsibility that you will probably (just guessing)propose? Are you saying that all is lost?

It's difficult to draw final, all-ecompassing conclusions. Generally, my thinking at this time is that the Constitution was a monumental error. That one has to imagine what other possibilities might have occurred instead---a stronger confederation that is yet far less powerful than the national government.

I do believe that the founding period was an extremely rare opportunity. And no, I don't believe the people are capable of devising or living under a truly free system. I believe that our population has been devolving for decades or more, and fails almost every test of a free people--adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. (that list is from the Virginia Declaration of Rights. )

I believe that until the freedom loving Americans see the Constitution as a failure, we'll be playing around at the margins, applying the brakes, while the country continues to move headlong in one and only one direction. The wrong one.

On your argument of point one "The people won’t allow themselves to be oppressed.": Isn't Madison's argument coming true in the 10th Amendment movement that is gaining steam in some states? And isn't the Tea Party movement and the past "Summer of disenchantment of the Party in power" an indication that Madison's belief a proof of his argument?

And what if those who favor liberty are outnumbered by obnoxious forces who accept and promote abuses of federal power?

This has already happened time and time again throughout history. The power gets overthrown. I believe, right now the seeds are being planted in this country for a return to a harnessed government. The pols in power are taking precarious steps towards tyranny and unemployment is rising. Discontent, like a snowball, starts small and gets bigger going down hill.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I often mention that despite the glaring failures of the Constitution, and the abuses we endure, life is still amazingly enjoyable and rewarding. I do wonder if I won't get myself on some sort of watch list, though,lol.

It's fine to say we're in good shape compared to the rest of the world (although Switzerland seems pretty good if you have the money!). It is interesting, at least, to imagine how we could be better under a different system. But that's water under the bridge. We couldn't be a "superpower" unless we had a strong, central government, and most conservatives would not want to give that up.

I just find the "follow the Constitution" arguments pointless intellectually. A quick study of history demonstrates the futility of the exericise. It's a useful tactic for applying the brakes, but nothing more. It's nostalgia for what never was, as you inferred.

On your argument of point one "The people won’t allow themselves to be oppressed.": Isn't Madison's argument coming true in the 10th Amendment movement that is gaining steam in some states?

In my opinion, no. I say the 10th amendment is as toothless as a meth addict. Ultimately, it would take FORCE, not mere declarations. We could possibly see another nullification crisis, I suppose. But Madison's prediction was that ALL states would be united against FEDZILLA. Instead we have a small handful of states making noise, I believe for political purposes only. Let's see them back it up with force. Then I'll believe.

And even if they did, there is too much to undo. If you want to really get depressed, study the landmark Supreme Court cases going all the way back to the beginning. You might as well start over. It'd be easier.

And isn't the Tea Party movement and the past "Summer of disenchantment of the Party in power" an indication that Madison's belief a proof of his argument?

Not in my opinion.

I totally disagree that the Constitution is a failure. The main failure of this Country/Government at this time in history is due to an abandonment of why this land was inhabited in the first place, to worship God.

God has been stripped from our society and has resulted in a moral relativism which at the political level has created a destructive environment of partisanism. Career politicians are bought, sold and outrageous behavior is defended because the people wink and nod because they are getting there's. What do they know? There has been a failure of seeking the Truth and an outright movement to keep the populace fat, dumb and happy.

I believe the people of this great nation need to be reformed, not the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

You have to understand that Madison’s (and the rest of the founders’) viewpoints were based on a “moral and religious people” with a foundation in the Judeo-Christian value system.

Remove that basis, and all bets are off.

The expansion of the centralized government is just a symptom of humans worshipping other humans based on their perceived elitism.

I believe there is a recent proposal to require each new piece of legislation to reference the exact clause of the Constitution which allows the federal government to enact said legislation. The thinking being that much new legislation could not pass this test (ex. Obama's healthcare).

If the original Constitution has mandated this simple method of affirming the constitutionality of all legislation, we would have been spared a lot of our current trouble.

It's gotta start somewhere. It isn't going to start with everyone in lockstep. It never happens that way.

You are falling into your own trap. Be like Andrew Jackson and don't listen to the Men in Black. Let them enforce the ridiculous rulings.

I agree with you on one point - We complain about the Cubans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, etc... on "why they just don't rise up and fight." Well, we need to look at ourselves and stop listening to smarmy music on our iPods and realize we are hypocrites when we make such arguments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.