Antifederalist No. 14 Extent of Territory Under Consolidated Government |
 |
. . . The recital, or premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares
a consolidation or union of all the thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under
the form of the United States, for all the various and important purposes therein set
forth. But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within
the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions,
and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the
dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as
an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never
form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these
objects it must be directed. This unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests
opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a
house divided against itself.
The governments of Europe have taken their limits and form from adventitious
circumstances, and nothing can be argued on the motive of agreement from them; but these
adventitious political principles have nevertheless produced effects that have attracted
the attention of philosophy, which have established axioms in the science of politics
therefrom, as irrefragable as any in Euclid. It is natural, says Montesquieu, to a
republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist: in a large one,
there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are too great
deposits to trust in the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes
sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and
that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country. In large republics,
the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views, in a small one, the interest of the
public is easily perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen;
abuses have a less extent, and of course are less protected. He also shows you, that the
duration of the republic of Sparta was owing to its having continued with the same extent
of territory after all its wars; and that the ambition of Athens and Lacedaemon to command
and direct the union, lost them their liberties, and gave them a monarchy.
From this picture, what can you promise yourselves, on the score of consolidation of the
United States into one government? Impracticability in the just exercise of it, your
freedom insecure, even this form of government limited in its continuance, the employments
of your country disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually be an
object. You must risk much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude,
into the hands of individuals whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress
and grind you. Where, from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of
interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too
mysterious for you to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a
monarchy, either limited or despotic; the latter, Mr. Locke remarks, is a government
derived from neither nature nor compact.
Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes, consists in security, or at least
in the opinion we have of security; and this security, therefore, or the opinion, is best
obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the
manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion.
This moderation in governments depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with
their political distribution.
The extent of many of the states of the Union, is at this time almost too great for the
superintendence of a republican form of government, and must one day or other revolve into
more vigorous ones, or by separation be reduced into smaller and more useful, as well as
moderate ones. You have already observed the feeble efforts of Massachusetts against their
insurgents; with what difficulty did they quell that insurrection; and is not the province
of Maine at this moment on the eve of separation from her? The reason of these things is,
that for the security of the property of the community -- in which expressive term Mr.
Locke makes life, liberty, and estate, to consist the wheels of a republic are necessarily
slow in their operation. Hence, in large free republics, the evil sometimes is not only
begun, but almost completed, before they are in a situation to turn the current into a
contrary progression. The extremes are also too remote from the usual seat of government,
and the laws, therefore, too feeble to afford protection to all its parts, and insure
domestic tranquility without the aid of another principle. If, therefore, this state [New
York], and that of North Carolina, had an army under their control, they never would have
lost Vermont, and Frankland, nor the state of Massachusetts suffered an insurrection, or
the dismemberment of her fairest district; but the exercise of a principle which would
have prevented these things, if we may believe the experience of ages, would have ended in
the destruction of their liberties.
Will this consolidated republic, if established, in its exercise beget such confidence and
compliance, among the citizens of these states, as to do without the aid of a standing
army? I deny that it will. The malcontents in each state, who will not be a few, nor the
least important, will be exciting factions against it. The fear of a dismemberment of some
of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution Of revenue* as (a fruitful source
of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, will
incidentally and necessarily require a permanent force, to be kept on foot. Will not
political security, and even the opinion of it, be extinguished? Can mildness and
moderation exist in a government where the primary incident in its exercise must be force?
Will not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist where the extent, policy,
and practice of it will naturally lead to make odious distinctions among citizens?
The people who may compose this national legislature from the southern states, in which,
from the mildness of the climate, the fertility of the soil, and the value of its
productions, wealth is rapidly acquired, and where the same causes naturally lead to
luxury, dissipation, and a passion for aristocratic distinction; where slavery is
encouraged, and liberty of course less respected and protected; who know not what it is to
acquire property by their own toil, nor to economize with the savings of industry -- will
these men, therefore, be as tenacious of the liberties and interests of the more northern
states, where freedom, independence, industry, equality and frugality are natural to the
climate and soil, as men who are your own citizens, legislating in your own state, under
your inspection, and whose manners and fortunes bear a more equal resemblance to your own?
It may be suggested, in answer to this, that whoever is a citizen of one state is a
citizen of each, and that therefore he will be as interested in the happiness and interest
of all, as the one he is delegated from. But the argument is fallacious, and, whoever has
attended to the history of mankind, and the principles which bind them together as
parents, citizens, or men, will readily perceive it. These principles are, in their
exercise, like a pebble cast on the calm surface of a river -- the circles begin in the
center, and are small, active and forcible, but as they depart from that point, they lose
their force, and vanish into calmness.
The strongest principle of union resides within our domestic walls. The ties of the parent
exceed that of any other. As we depart from home, the next general principle of union is
amongst citizens of the same state, where acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, nourish
affection, and attachment. Enlarge the circle still further, and, as citizens of different
states, though we acknowledge the same national denomination, we lose in the ties of
acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, and thus by degrees we lessen in our attachments,
till, at length, we no more than acknowledge a sameness of species. Is it, therefore, from
certainty like this, reasonable to believe, that inhabitants of Georgia, or New Hampshire,
will have the same obligations towards you as your own, and preside over your lives,
liberties, and property, with the same care and attachment? Intuitive reason answers in
the negative. . . .
CATO
| Go To Top | Previous | Next |
