Federalist Paper No. 26
Thursday, June 15, 2006
I was reading an article by Nancy Levant that referred to The Federalist No. 26. Having been awhile since I read this, I decided to take her advise and go read it again. The subject of this letter to the citizens of New York was to calm their fears about having a permanent standing army. While reading it, I ran across the following excerpt that made me laugh because of how ludicrous it sounds in our day.
Hamilton wanted to reassure citizens that even if the national legislature became corrupt, the state legislatures would sound the alarm to the local citizens. The citizens of the several states could then act swiftly to put down any national attempt to oppress the individual state governments. Hamilton, I'm sure, did not envision the individual states becoming handmaidens of the national government when he wrote these words. He surely could not anticipate that the states would be reliant on the national government for a large part of their operating revenue. In addition, the state's reliance on national funds would required them to do the national government's bidding or face bankruptcy. (You don't suppose this is why the 16th and 17th Amendments were passed in quick succession, do you?)
FEDERALIST PAPER No. 26The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard |
The questions posed by Mr. Hamilton probably seemed to him to be almost to absurd to ask. In our times, it is not hard to go right down the list and answer 'Yes, Yes, Yes' to each one.
An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time.
- Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all?
- Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses?
- Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country?
- Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger?
Like I said, not hard at all... Can you imagine swarms of IRS, EPA, FBI, DEA, CIA, HLS, and so many other alphabet agents? Many of these agencies have been with us for too many decades.
And what of Hamilton's recommendation to pull authority from the national government when it becomes destructive? I don't think we have the fortitude to do it. Heck, many of us are absolutely content with the way things are. Besides, even if we tried, the national government isn't likely to submit to the states without a fight. Remember, this letter was about how the national government wouldn't be able to have a standing army for more than a couple of years--and using that standing army to oppress the individual states... You know, the standing army we've now had for several decades.
3 Comments:
Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country?
Well, Hamilton was wrong on this. These people are traitors before they take office.
Hamilton was wrong on a number of fronts; he believed the Judiciary would be incapable of exercising any real power, because they hold an advisory position only; he never imagined that the other branches of government would be abdicate their authority to the Courts. In fact, Hamilton seemed to believed that Court rulings could simply be ignored, if they were out of line.
Great post, Don!
Yes, it has taken 200+ years, but the US government is much more to Hamilton's taste now than it was when first established. He wanted a strong central government and even talked about appointing senators and presidents for life. He urged and got a central federal bank. He thought (perhaps too idealistically) that there was no need for a bill of rights because the Constitution itself was a bill of rights in the sense that the government could do nothing that was not spelled out in the document.
Or maybe he knew that, over time, the government would increase to its present massive size and was satisfied with that outcome.
Post a Comment
<< Home