[16] LETTER III.
The writer of this address hopes, that he will now be thought so
disengaged from the objections against the principle assumed, that
he may be excused for recurring to his assertion, that—the power of
the people pervading the proposed system, together with the strong
confederation of the states, will form an adequate security against
every danger that has been apprehended.
It is a mournful, but maybe a useful truth, that the liberty of single
republics has generally been destroyed by some of the citizens, and of
confederated republics, by some of the associated states.
It is more pleasing, and may be more profitable to reflect, that, their
tranquility and prosperity have commonly been promoted, in proportion
to the strength of their government for protecting the worthy against
the licentious.
As in forming a political society, each individual contributes some
of his rights, in order that he may, from _a common stock_ of rights,
derive greater benefits, than he could from merely _his own_; so,
in forming a confederation, each political society should contribute
such a share of their rights, as will, from _a common stock_ of these
rights, produce the largest quantity of benefits for them.
But, what is that share? and, how to be managed? Momentous questions!
Here, flattery is treason; and error, destruction.
[17] Are they unanswerable? No. Our most gracious _Creator_ does not
condemn us to sigh for unattainable blessedness: But one thing he
demands—that we should seek for happiness in his way, and not in our
own.
Humility and benevolence must take place of pride and overweening
selfishness. Reason, rising above these mists, will then discover
to us, that we cannot be true to ourselves, without being true
to others—that to love our neighbours as ourselves, is to love
ourselves in the best manner—that to give, is to gain—and, that we
never consult our own happiness more effectually, than when we most
endeavour to correspond with _the divine designs_, by communicating
happiness, as much as we can, to our fellow-creatures. _Inestimable
truth!_ sufficient, if they do not barely ask what it is, to melt
tyrants into men, and to soothe the inflamed minds of a multitude into
mildness—_Inestimable truth!_ which our Maker in his providence,
enables us, not only to talk and write about, but to adopt in practice
of vast extent, and of instructive example.
Let us now enquire, if there be not some _principle_, simple as the
laws of nature in other instances, from which, as from a _source_, the
many benefits of society are deduced.
We may with reverence say, that our _Creator_ designed men for society,
because otherwise they cannot be happy. They cannot be happy without
freedom; nor free without security; that is, without the absence of
fear; nor thus secure, without society. The conclusion [18] is strictly
syllogistic—that men cannot be free without society. Of course, they
cannot be equally free without society, _which freedom produces the
greatest happiness_.
As these premises are invincible, we have advanced a considerable way
in our enquiry upon _this deeply interesting subject_. If we can
determine, what share of his rights, every individual must contribute
to _the common stock_ of rights in forming a society, for obtaining
equal freedom, we determine at the same time, what share of their
rights each political society must contribute to _the common stock_ or
rights in forming a confederation, which is only a larger society, for
obtaining equal freedom: For, if the deposit be not proportioned to the
magnitude of the association in the latter case, it will generate the
same mischief among the component parts of it, from their inequality,
that would result from a defective contribution to association in the
former case, among the component parts of it, from their inequality.
Each individual then must contribute such a share of his rights,
as is necessary for attaining that _security_ that is essential to
freedom; and he is bound to make this contribution by the law of his
nature, which prompts him to a participated happiness; that is, by the
command of his creator; therefore, he must submit his will, _in what
concerns all_, to the will of all, that is of the whole society. What
does he lose by this submission; The power of doing [19] injuries to
others—and the dread of suffering injuries from them. What does he
gain by it? The aid of those associated with him, for his relief from
the incommodities of mental or bodily weakness—the pleasure for which
his heart is formed—of doing good—_protection_ against injuries—a
capacity of enjoying his undelegated rights to the best advantage—a
repeal of his fears—and tranquility of mind—or, in other words, that
perfect liberty better described in the Holy Scriptures, than any where
else, in these expressions—“When every man shall sit under his vine,
and under his fig-tree, and _none shall make him afraid_.”
The like submission, with a correspondent expansion and accommodation,
must be made between states, for obtaining the like benefits in a
confederation. _Men_ are the materials of both. As the largest number
is but a junction of _units_—a confederation is but an assemblage of
individuals. The auspicious influence of the law of his nature, upon
which the happiness of _man_ depends in society, must attend him in
confederation, or he becomes unhappy; for confederation should promote
the happiness of individuals, or it does not _answer the intended
purpose_. Herein there is a progression, not a contradiction. As
_man_, he becomes a citizen; as a citizen, he becomes a federalist.
The generation of one, is not the destruction of the other. He carries
into society his naked rights: These thereby improved, he carries still
forward into confederation. If that sacred law before mentioned, is not
here [20] observed, the confederation would not be real, but pretended.
He would confide, and be deceived.(41)
[21] The dilemma is inevitable. There must either be one will, or
several wills. If but one will, all the people are concerned: if
several wills, few comparatively are concerned. Surprizing! that this
doctrine should be contended for by those, who declare, that the
constitution is not founded on a bottom broad enough; and, though _the
whole people_ of the United States are to be _trebly_ represented in it
in _three different modes_ of representation, and their servants will
have the most advantageous situations and opportunities of acquiring
all requisite information for the welfare of the [22] whole union, yet
insist for a privilege of opposing, obstructing, and confounding all
their measures taken with common consent for the general weal, by the
delays, negligences, rivalries, or other selfish views of parts of the
union.
Thus, while one state should be relied upon by the union for giving
aid, upon a recommendation of Congress, to another in distress, the
latter might be ruined; and the state relied upon, might suppose, it
would gain by such an event.
When any persons speak of a consideration, do they, or do they not
acknowledge, that the whole is interested in the safety of every
part—in the agreement of parts—in the relation of parts [23] to one
another—to the whole—or, to other societies? If they do—then, the
authority of the whole, must be co-extensive with its interests—and if
it is, the will of the whole must and ought in such cases to govern;
or else the whole would have interests without an authority to manage
them—a position which prejudice itself cannot digest.
If they do not acknowledge, that the whole is thus interested, the
conversation should cease. Such persons mean not a confederation, but
something else.
As to the idea, that this superintending sovereign will must of
consequence destroy the subordinate sovereignties of the several
states, it is begging a concession of the question, by inferring, that
a manifest and great usefulness must necessarily end in abuse; and not
only so, but it requires an extinction of the principle of all society:
for the subordinate sovereignties, or, in other words, the undelegated
rights of the several states, in a confederation, stand upon the
very same foundation with the undelegated rights of individuals in a
society, the federal sovereign will being composed of the subordinate
sovereign wills of the several confederated states. As some persons
seem to think, a bill of rights is the best security of rights, the
sovereignties of the several states have this best security by the
proposed constitution, and more than this best security, for they are
not barely declared to be rights, but are taken into it as component
parts for their perpetual preservation—by themselves. In short, the
government of each state is, and is to be, [24] sovereign and supreme
in all matters that relate to each state only. It is to be subordinate
barely in those matters that relate to the whole; and it will be their
_own faults_ if the several states suffer the federal sovereignty to
interfere in things of their respective jurisdictions. An instance of
such interference with regard to any single state, will be a dangerous
precedent as to all, and therefore will be guarded against by all, as
the trustees or servants of the several states will not dare, if they
retain their senses, so to violate the independent sovereignty of their
respective states, _that justly darling object_ of American affections,
to which they are responsible, besides being endeared by all the
charities of life.
The common sense of mankind agrees to the devolutions of individual
wills in society; and if it has not been as universally assented to in
confederation, the reasons are evident, and worthy of being retained
in remembrance by Americans. They were want of opportunities, or the
loss of them, through defects of knowledge and virtue. The principle,
however, has been sufficiently vindicated in imperfect combinations, as
their prosperity has generally been commensurate to its operation.
How beautifully and forcibly does the inspired Apostle Paul, argue upon
a sublimer subject, with a train of reasoning strictly applicable to
the present? His words are—“If the foot shall say, because I am not
the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? and if
the ear shall say, because I am [25] not the eye, I am not of the body;
is it therefore not of the body?” As plainly inferring, as could be
done in that allegorical manner, the strongest censure of such partial
discontents and dissentions, especially, as his meaning is enforced by
his description of the benefits of union in these expressions—“But,
now they are many members, yet but one body: and the eye _cannot_ say
to the hand, I have no need of thee.”
When the commons of Rome upon a rupture with the Senate, seceded in
arms at the Mons sacer, Menemius Agrippa used the like allusion to
the human body, in his famous apologue of a quarrel among some of
the members. The unpolished but honest-hearted Romans of that day,
understood him, and were appeased.
Another comparison has been made by the learned, between a natural
and a political body; and no wonder indeed, when the title of the
latter was borrowed from the resemblance. It has therefore been justly
observed, that if a mortification takes place in one or some of the
limbs, and the rest of the body is sound, remedies may be applied,
and not only the contagion prevented from spreading, but the diseased
part or parts saved by the connection with the body, and restored to
former usefulness. When general putrefaction prevails, death is to be
expected. History sacred and profane tells us, that, _corruption of
manners sinks nations into slavery_.