instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the
essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to
discriminate the OBJECTS, as far as it can be done, which shall
appertain to the different provinces or departments of power; allowing
to each the most ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed
to its charge. Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the
common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this
purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all
laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same
must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to
which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of
justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of
the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are
connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted
to their particular cognizance and direction. Not to confer in each
case a degree of power commensurate to the end, would be to violate the
most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to
trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled
from managing them with vigor and success.
Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as
that body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided;
which, as the centre of information, will best understand the extent
and urgency of the dangers that threaten; as the representative of the
WHOLE, will feel itself most deeply interested in the preservation of
every part; which, from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned
to it, will be most sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper
exertions; and which, by the extension of its authority throughout the
States, can alone establish uniformity and concert in the plans and
measures by which the common safety is to be secured? Is there not a
manifest inconsistency in devolving upon the federal government the
care of the general defense, and leaving in the State governments the
EFFECTIVE powers by which it is to be provided for? Is not a want of
co-operation the infallible consequence of such a system? And will not
weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of the burdens and calamities
of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase of expense, be its
natural and inevitable concomitants? Have we not had unequivocal
experience of its effects in the course of the revolution which we have
just accomplished?
Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth,
will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny
the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects
which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most
vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled
in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the
requisite powers. If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our
consideration, should not, upon a dispassionate inspection, be found to
answer this description, it ought to be rejected. A government, the
constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the
powers which a free people OUGHT TO DELEGATE TO ANY GOVERNMENT, would
be an unsafe and improper depositary of the NATIONAL INTERESTS.
Wherever THESE can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers
may safely accompany them. This is the true result of all just
reasoning upon the subject. And the adversaries of the plan promulgated
by the convention ought to have confined themselves to showing, that
the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render
it unworthy of the confidence of the people. They ought not to have
wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the
extent of the powers. The POWERS are not too extensive for the OBJECTS
of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of
our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to
show that they are chargeable with such an excess. If it be true, as
has been insinuated by some of the writers on the other side, that the
difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, and that the extent of
the country will not permit us to form a government in which such ample
powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we ought to contract
our views, and resort to the expedient of separate confederacies, which
will move within more practicable spheres. For the absurdity must
continually stare us in the face of confiding to a government the
direction of the most essential national interests, without daring to
trust it to the authorities which are indispensible to their proper and
efficient management. Let us not attempt to reconcile contradictions,
but firmly embrace a rational alternative.
I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system
cannot be shown. I am greatly mistaken, if any thing of weight has yet
been advanced of this tendency; and I flatter myself, that the
observations which have been made in the course of these papers have
served to place the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any
matter still in the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of.
This, at all events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself,
drawn from the extent of the country, is the strongest argument in
favor of an energetic government; for any other can certainly never
preserve the Union of so large an empire. If we embrace the tenets of
those who oppose the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as the
standard of our political creed, we cannot fail to verify the gloomy
doctrines which predict the impracticability of a national system
pervading entire limits of the present Confederacy.
PUBLIUS.
THE FEDERALIST.
No. XXIV.
The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
To the powers proposed to be conferred upon the federal government, in
respect to the creation and direction of the national forces, I have
met with but one specific objection, which, if I understand it right,
is this, that proper provision has not been made against the existence
of standing armies in time of peace; an objection which, I shall now
endeavor to show, rests on weak and unsubstantial foundations.
It has indeed been brought forward in the most vague and general form,
supported only by bold assertions, without the appearance of argument;
without even the sanction of theoretical opinions; in contradiction to
the practice of other free nations, and to the general sense of
America, as expressed in most of the existing constitutions. The
proprietory of this remark will appear, the moment it is recollected
that the objection under consideration turns upon a supposed necessity
of restraining the LEGISLATIVE authority of the nation, in the article
of military establishments; a principle unheard of, except in one or
two of our State constitutions, and rejected in all the rest.
A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the
present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported
by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions:
either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies
should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE
the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion,
in any shape, to the control of the legislature.
If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised
to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the
whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the
EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting
of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that
instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies,
there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important
qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which
forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any
longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of
it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up
of troops without evident necessity.
Disappointed in his first surmise, the person I have supposed would be
apt to pursue his conjectures a little further. He would naturally say
to himself, it is impossible that all this vehement and pathetic
declamation can be without some colorable pretext. It must needs be
that this people, so jealous of their liberties, have, in all the
preceding models of the constitutions which they have established,
inserted the most precise and rigid precautions on this point, the
omission of which, in the new plan, has given birth to all this
apprehension and clamor.
If, under this impression, he proceeded to pass in review the several
State constitutions, how great would be his disappointment to find that
TWO only of them[1] contained an interdiction of standing armies in
time of peace; that the other eleven had either observed a profound
silence on the subject, or had in express terms admitted the right of
the Legislature to authorize their existence.
Still, however he would be persuaded that there must be some plausible
foundation for the cry raised on this head. He would never be able to
imagine, while any source of information remained unexplored, that it
was nothing more than an experiment upon the public credulity, dictated
either by a deliberate intention to deceive, or by the overflowings of
a zeal too intemperate to be ingenuous. It would probably occur to him,
that he would be likely to find the precautions he was in search of in
the primitive compact between the States. Here, at length, he would
expect to meet with a solution of the enigma. No doubt, he would
observe to himself, the existing Confederation must contain the most
explicit provisions against military establishments in time of peace;
and a departure from this model, in a favorite point, has occasioned
the discontent which appears to influence these political champions.
If he should now apply himself to a careful and critical survey of the
articles of Confederation, his astonishment would not only be
increased, but would acquire a mixture of indignation, at the
unexpected discovery, that these articles, instead of containing the
prohibition he looked for, and though they had, with jealous
circumspection, restricted the authority of the State legislatures in
this particular, had not imposed a single restraint on that of the
United States. If he happened to be a man of quick sensibility, or
ardent temper, he could now no longer refrain from regarding these
clamors as the dishonest artifices of a sinister and unprincipled
opposition to a plan which ought at least to receive a fair and candid
examination from all sincere lovers of their country! How else, he
would say, could the authors of them have been tempted to vent such
loud censures upon that plan, about a point in which it seems to have
conformed itself to the general sense of America as declared in its
different forms of government, and in which it has even superadded a
new and powerful guard unknown to any of them? If, on the contrary, he
happened to be a man of calm and dispassionate feelings, he would
indulge a sigh for the frailty of human nature, and would lament, that
in a matter so interesting to the happiness of millions, the true
merits of the question should be perplexed and entangled by expedients
so unfriendly to an impartial and right determination. Even such a man
could hardly forbear remarking, that a conduct of this kind has too
much the appearance of an intention to mislead the people by alarming
their passions, rather than to convince them by arguments addressed to
their understandings.
But however little this objection may be countenanced, even by
precedents among ourselves, it may be satisfactory to take a nearer
view of its intrinsic merits. From a close examination it will appear
that restraints upon the discretion of the legislature in respect to
military establishments in time of peace, would be improper to be
imposed, and if imposed, from the necessities of society, would be
unlikely to be observed.
Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there
are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence
or security. On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are
growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other
side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and
establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the
vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers
create between them, in respect to their American possessions and in
relation to us, a common interest. The savage tribes on our Western
frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies, their natural
allies, because they have most to fear from us, and most to hope from
them. The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the
facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great
measure, neighbors. Britain and Spain are among the principal maritime
powers of Europe. A future concert of views between these nations ought
not to be regarded as improbable. The increasing remoteness of
consanguinity is every day diminishing the force of the family compact
between France and Spain. And politicians have ever with great reason
considered the ties of blood as feeble and precarious links of
political connection. These circumstances combined, admonish us not to
be too sanguine in considering ourselves as entirely out of the reach
of danger.
Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a
constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier.
No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it
should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians.
These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from
the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The
first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The
militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their
occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in
times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or
compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of
service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious
pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the
scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as
ruinous to private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in
the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace;
a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a
simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a
constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity
of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the
legislature.
In proportion to our increase in strength, it is probable, nay, it may
be said certain, that Britain and Spain would augment their military
establishments in our neighborhood. If we should not be willing to be
exposed, in a naked and defenseless condition, to their insults and
encroachments, we should find it expedient to increase our frontier
garrisons in some ratio to the force by which our Western settlements
might be annoyed. There are, and will be, particular posts, the
possession of which will include the command of large districts of
territory, and facilitate future invasions of the remainder. It may be
added that some of those posts will be keys to the trade with the
Indian nations. Can any man think it would be wise to leave such posts
in a situation to be at any instant seized by one or the other of two
neighboring and formidable powers? To act this part would be to desert
all the usual maxims of prudence and policy.
If we mean to be a commercial people, or even to be secure on our
Atlantic side, we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy.
To this purpose there must be dock-yards and arsenals; and for the
defense of these, fortifications, and probably garrisons. When a nation
has become so powerful by sea that it can protect its dock-yards by its
fleets, this supersedes the necessity of garrisons for that purpose;
but where naval establishments are in their infancy, moderate garrisons
will, in all likelihood, be found an indispensable security against
descents for the destruction of the arsenals and dock-yards, and
sometimes of the fleet itself.
PUBLIUS.
[1] This statement of the matter is taken from the printed collection
of State constitutions. Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two
which contain the interdiction in these words: “As standing armies in
time of peace are dangerous to liberty, THEY OUGHT NOT to be kept up.”
This is, in truth, rather a CAUTION than a PROHIBITION. New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Delaware, and Maryland have, in each of their bils of
rights, a clause to this effect: “Standing armies are dangerous to
liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE”; which is a formal admission of the authority of the
Legislature. New York has no bills of rights, and her constitution
says not a word about the matter. No bills of rights appear annexed to
the constitutions of the other States, except the foregoing, and their
constitutions are equally silent. I am told, however that one or two
States have bills of rights which do not appear in this collection;
but that those also recognize the right of the legislative authority
in this respect.
THE FEDERALIST.
No. XXV.
The Same Subject Continued
(The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered)
From the New York Packet.
Friday, December 21, 1787.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
It may perhaps be urged that the objects enumerated in the preceding
number ought to be provided for by the State governments, under the
direction of the Union. But this would be, in reality, an inversion of
the primary principle of our political association, as it would in
practice transfer the care of the common defense from the federal head
to the individual members: a project oppressive to some States,
dangerous to all, and baneful to the Confederacy.
The territories of Britain, Spain, and of the Indian nations in our
neighborhood do not border on particular States, but encircle the Union
from Maine to Georgia. The danger, though in different degrees, is
therefore common. And the means of guarding against it ought, in like
manner, to be the objects of common councils and of a common treasury.
It happens that some States, from local situation, are more directly
exposed. New York is of this class. Upon the plan of separate
provisions, New York would have to sustain the whole weight of the
establishments requisite to her immediate safety, and to the mediate or
ultimate protection of her neighbors. This would neither be equitable
as it respected New York nor safe as it respected the other States.
Various inconveniences would attend such a system. The States, to whose
lot it might fall to support the necessary establishments, would be as
little able as willing, for a considerable time to come, to bear the
burden of competent provisions. The security of all would thus be
subjected to the parsimony, improvidence, or inability of a part. If
the resources of such part becoming more abundant and extensive, its
provisions should be proportionally enlarged, the other States would
quickly take the alarm at seeing the whole military force of the Union
in the hands of two or three of its members, and those probably amongst
the most powerful. They would each choose to have some counterpoise,
and pretenses could easily be contrived. In this situation, military
establishments, nourished by mutual jealousy, would be apt to swell
beyond their natural or proper size; and being at the separate disposal
of the members, they would be engines for the abridgment or demolition
of the national authority.
Reasons have been already given to induce a supposition that the State
governments will too naturally be prone to a rivalship with that of the
Union, the foundation of which will be the love of power; and that in
any contest between the federal head and one of its members the people
will be most apt to unite with their local government. If, in addition
to this immense advantage, the ambition of the members should be
stimulated by the separate and independent possession of military
forces, it would afford too strong a temptation and too great a
facility to them to make enterprises upon, and finally to subvert, the
constitutional authority of the Union. On the other hand, the liberty
of the people would be less safe in this state of things than in that
which left the national forces in the hands of the national government.
As far as an army may be considered as a dangerous weapon of power, it
had better be in those hands of which the people are most likely to be
jealous than in those of which they are least likely to be jealous. For
it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the
people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their
rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least
suspicion.
The framers of the existing Confederation, fully aware of the danger to
the Union from the separate possession of military forces by the
States, have, in express terms, prohibited them from having either
ships or troops, unless with the consent of Congress. The truth is,
that the existence of a federal government and military establishments
under State authority are not less at variance with each other than a
due supply of the federal treasury and the system of quotas and
requisitions.
There are other lights besides those already taken notice of, in which
the impropriety of restraints on the discretion of the national
legislature will be equally manifest. The design of the objection,
which has been mentioned, is to preclude standing armies in time of
peace, though we have never been informed how far it is designed the
prohibition should extend; whether to raising armies as well as to
KEEPING THEM UP in a season of tranquillity or not. If it be confined
to the latter it will have no precise signification, and it will be
ineffectual for the purpose intended. When armies are once raised what
shall be denominated “keeping them up,” contrary to the sense of the
Constitution? What time shall be requisite to ascertain the violation?
Shall it be a week, a month, a year? Or shall we say they may be
continued as long as the danger which occasioned their being raised
continues? This would be to admit that they might be kept up IN TIME OF
PEACE, against threatening or impending danger, which would be at once
to deviate from the literal meaning of the prohibition, and to
introduce an extensive latitude of construction. Who shall judge of the
continuance of the danger? This must undoubtedly be submitted to the
national government, and the matter would then be brought to this
issue, that the national government, to provide against apprehended
danger, might in the first instance raise troops, and might afterwards
keep them on foot as long as they supposed the peace or safety of the
community was in any degree of jeopardy. It is easy to perceive that a
discretion so latitudinary as this would afford ample room for eluding
the force of the provision.
The supposed utility of a provision of this kind can only be founded on
the supposed probability, or at least possibility, of a combination
between the executive and the legislative, in some scheme of
usurpation. Should this at any time happen, how easy would it be to
fabricate pretenses of approaching danger! Indian hostilities,
instigated by Spain or Britain, would always be at hand. Provocations
to produce the desired appearances might even be given to some foreign
power, and appeased again by timely concessions. If we can reasonably
presume such a combination to have been formed, and that the enterprise
is warranted by a sufficient prospect of success, the army, when once
raised, from whatever cause, or on whatever pretext, may be applied to
the execution of the project.