Federalist Paper No. 9
"Union a Safeguard against Faction and Insurrection"
James Duvall, M. A.
with Jami Duvall, age 13
Grass-Roots Teaparty Boone County Kentucky
Meeting of 27 Feb 2012 Florence, Kentucky
Hamilton begins his paper with the statement: "A firm Union will be of the Utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection." He never really proves this statement; rather he clears the field of some objections so that this will become self-evident. Hamilton answers the objections of those who oppose Union on the grounds that a Republic can never be large. He points out that some of those opposed are consistent enough to propose the division of the larger American states then in existence.
This Hamilton considers to be folly. The chief grounds advanced by those who opposed the Union were certain passages in Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Laws" (1748). Hamilton proceeds to show that elsewhere Montesquieu explicitly elaborates how a Confederacy of Republics can enjoy the advantages of both a Republic and a Monarchy.
Montesqieu says that a larger confederation of Republics will not squabble among themselves, like independent Republics. If there is insurrection in one of them, they will have means to quell it. If one part propagates abuses, then the healthy parts can band together to correct the problem
Hamilton does not say there will be no factions or insurrections. He does not say there will be no abuses — he says there will be safeguards, and means to correct the problems through division and balance of power. Hamilton almost assumes there will be abuses, but that there will almost automatically be moves to counter the abuse — up to and including the use of armed force.
Hamilton points out a major strength of the Federal system: The constituent states are not supersceded by the Federal Government, but are an integral part of the system. Federalist Paper No. 50 goes into much more detail concerning the partition of powers, and there it is pointed out that there are under this system two separate systems of government under our Constitution, "the compound Republic of America".
This division or separation of power is the most important feature of our system of government. Hamilton states five principles of government understood better in his time than they had been in the past:
Note: At the meeting these principles were stated and elaborated by my son Jami, age 13.
1. Distribution of Power into Branches.
2. Checks and Balances within the Legislative Branch. There are two houses, each with its own powers and relations to the rest of
the government, that is the Senate and the House of Representatives.
3. The institution of an independent Court system. The other two branches had a part in appointing the judiciary, but could not diminish salaries, and the justices held their appointment for life, on good behavior. (A good behavior qualification should be inforced for the other two branches also!)
4. Elective Representation. This gives the People a larger share of the power.
5. Enlargement of the scope of the Republican system. Republics, it was now known, can be consolidated into a larger Federal system.
This fifth point is the one Hamilton is arguing for throughout the Papers, and he is concerned here to remove some of the objections made to large Republics. This system is equal both to the challenges of defending from enemies abroad, and taking care of internal disturbances.
Note: After some discussion the floor was returned to the original speaker, who produced a copy of Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Laws", remarking that it was in such bad shape it had probably been Hamilton's copy.
Book 9 chapter 1 of the "Spirit of the Laws" begins: "If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection." This is exactly the subject Hamilton is discussing.
Montesquieu goes on to name other Confederate Republics at the time he was writing (1748), particularly Holland, Germany, and the Swiss cantons. Holland he says is made up of fifty smaller republics. All of these are considered by Europe to be "perpetual republics". Such a Republic, he says, can withstand external force and support itself without internal corruption. "The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty."
Therefore there are two benefits: (1) the benefits of small republics, and (2) externally they possess the advantages of large monarchies. There is no doubt this passage was in the minds of our founders in framing the Constitution. Montesquieu discusses the importance of each of the confederated states having a republican government. (Bk. 9, ch. 2)
Notice this is quaranteed by our Constitution. Article 4, section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
This article of the Constitution embodies the ideas Hamilton is discussing in Federalist Paper No. 9, and is an outcome of the theories of Montesquieu concerning the federation of Republics.
Note: A paper by H. L. Mencken about the importance of the Constitution in limiting government and preventing abuses, was also read, as follows:
The Constitution
A constitution is a standing limitation upon the power of the government. So far you may go, but no farther. No matter what the excuse or provocation, you may not invade certain rights, or pass certain kinds of laws. The lives and property of the people are at you disposition, but only up to a plainly indicated point. If you go beyond it, you become a public criminal, and may be proceeded against, at least in theory, like any other criminal. The government thus ceases to be sovereign, and becomes a creature of sharply defined and delimited powers. There are things it may not do.
This device is probably the greatest invention that man has made since the dawn of civilization. it lies at the bottom of most of his progress. It was responsible for the rise of free government in the Greek city states, and it has been responsible for the growth of nearly all the great nations of modern times. Wherever it has passed out of use there has been decay and retrogression. Every right that anyone has today is based on the doctrine that government is a creature of limited powers, and that the men constituting it become criminals if they venture to exceed those powers.
Naturally enough, this makes life uncomfortable for politicians, and especially for the more impudent and unconscionable variety of them. Once they get into office they like to exercise their power, for power and its ketchup, glory, are the victuals they feed and fatten upon. Thus it always annoys them when they collide with a constitutional prohibition. It not only interferes with their practice of the nefarious trade—to wit the trade of hoodwinking and exploiting the people: it is also a gross affront to the high mightiness. Am I not Diego Valdez, Lord Admiral of Spain? Why, then, should I be bound by rules and regulations? Why should I be said nay when I am bursting with altruism, and have in mind only the safety and felicity of all you poor fish, my vassals and retainers?
But when politicians talk thus, or act thus without talking, it is precisely the time to watch them most carefully. Their usual plan is to invade the constitution stealthily, and then wait to see what happens. If nothing happens they go on more boldly; if there is a protest they reply hotly that the constitution is wornout and absurd, and that progress is impossible under the dead hand. This is the time to watch them especially. They are up to no good to anyone save themselves. They are trying to whittle away the common rights of the rest of us. Their one and only object, now and always, is to get more power into their hands that it may be used freely for their advantage, and to the damage of everyone else. Beware of all politicians at all times, but beware of them most sharply when they talk of reforming and improving the constitution.
The Baltimore Evening Sun, 19 August 1935.
