The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 21:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

In the last few papers we reviewed the genius and fate of other confederate governments. I shall now describe the most important of their defects. To understand the fix we must understand the problem.

The current system of government among the United States is not effective because it lacks the ability to enforce its own laws. The government does not have the express power to punish those disobedient states, nor does it have the right to use force against them. If we are to follow the Articles as written, we will stand apart from the previously cited examples as uniquely disempowered in this respect.

There is also a problem with the current system because it does not offer mutual protection for the state governments. This means that if one state’s government is in danger, the national government cannot legally help. While this may endanger the union, it is not so immediately harmful as the unions inability to enforce its own laws.

An uprising could take control of a state and harm the freedoms of the people living there, and the national government would have no legal recourse but to watch regretfully. This has already nearly happened in Massachusetts and shows that these dangers are real. If a more capable and conquering leader had taken control, who could predict how the freedoms of the other neighboring states would be affected.

Some people object to federal protection due to their state pride. This type of objection would deprive us of one of the main benefits of a union in the first place, and must be due to misunderstanding. It would not impede the legal and peaceful reforms of the state constitutions, that right would remain. The protection could only operate against reforms instigated by violence, and you can never have too many protections against such a threat. The peace of society depends on it. In a government where the power is in the hands of the people, it is usually enough to just change the leaders if the government is not being run well. Federal protection would also protect the people against these leaders taking too much power.

The current system of dividing the states’ contributions to the national treasury based on quotas is another fundamental problem. It does not fill the national demand nor accurately reflect the wealth of each state. No standard has been determined to guide proportions either; factors like the value of land or the number of people does not give an accurate picture of a state’s wealth. Comparing European and Asian countries makes clear that neither metric represents their wealth well. Likewise in American states, comparing the wealth of various states to their neighbors shows that these factors do not accurately represent the states’ abilities to pay. The same is true when comparing counties within a state. For example, the wealth of King’s County in New York compared to Montgomery county is not accurately represented by the value of its land or the number of its people.

The wealth of nations depends on many different factors such as geography, climate, resources, government, education, economy, arts, industry, and more. Because of this, it is not possible to have a general rule for determining the wealth of a nation or state. Using such a rule to divide the states’ contributions to the national government would lead to inequality and unfairness.

Such inequality would eventually cause the breakdown of the union, as states would not want to be part of a system that is unfair and burdensome to some while barely affecting others. This problem is inherent in the current system of using quotas to divide contributions.

The best way to avoid the problems caused by quotas is to allow the national government to raise its own money through taxes on consumption, such as import and excise taxes. The amount contributed will depend on each citizen regulating their own consumption. The rich can be extravagant and the poor frugal. This way, private citizens are not unfairly targeted. If there are inequalities between states due to these taxes, they will likely be balanced out by inequalities in other states. In time, an equilibrium will be reached, or at least the inequalities will not be as extreme as they would be under the current system of quotas.

An advantage of taxes on consumption is that they naturally limit how much can be collected. If the taxes are too high, people will not want to buy as much, so the government will not make as much money. This prevents the government from collecting too much and oppressing the citizens.

It is a natural limitation on the government’s power to impose these taxes.

• Discussion: How would you compare Hamilton’s plan for raising federal funds compared to America’s current plan? Consider from a fiscal standpoint as well as from a liberty standpoint.

Indirect taxes, such as those on consumption, will probably be the main source of revenue for a long time. Direct taxes, which are based on things like land and buildings, can be divided using a standard like the value of land or the number of people. It is difficult to accurately value land, especially in a country that is not fully settled and improving. It is also expensive. It may be easier to use a simple rule, like the number of people, rather than leaving it up to the government’s discretion.

The Federalist 22:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

There are other problems with the current system of government besides those already mentioned.

One major issue is the lack of power to regulate commerce, which makes it difficult to make beneficial trade agreements with other countries. These countries may not want to make agreements with the United States because they do not know if the states will follow through on the agreements of the whole. Even Great Britain, which has had successful trade with the United States in the past, is hesitant to make more agreements until it is clear that the American government will be more consistent.

Some states have tried to influence trade with other countries through their own separate laws and regulations, but this has not been successful because there is no national authority to ensure that all the states are working together.

Some state laws have interfered with trade of other states, and there is a fear that these problems will continue and even increase if there is no national control. The numerous and repeated duties that different states can place on merchandise passing through their territories can make trade difficult, like in the German empire. While this may not specifically mirror itself in our country, if similar conflicts between states continues, the citizens of each state may eventually be treated like foreigners by the others.

The current system for raising armies in the United States, which relies on states providing a certain number of troops, has caused problems in the past. It led to competition between states, which caused them to offer large bonuses to attract soldiers. This resulted in short-term enlistments and a constantly changing army, which was harmful to discipline and put the country at risk.

The system has high cost, yields a poor army, and does not manage the equal distribution of the burden between states well. The states near the seat of war made much greater efforts to provide troops than those farther away. This unfair burden cannot be settled amongst the states, unlike balancing a debt with money. The system is weak and unfair.

The current system of equal voting power among states is unfair because it doesn’t reflect the number of people in each state. This means that smaller states have the same influence as larger ones, even though they have fewer people. This goes against the fundamental idea of a republican government. Some may reply that sovereigns are equal, but this twisted logic contradicts justice and common sense. It also means that the larger states may eventually revolt against the smaller states because they don’t want to be controlled by them. The smaller states should give up this unfair advantage in order to keep the union together.

• Discussion: An individual is an innate sovereign, which may delegate power to a representative at state level, which may themselves act at an even higher federal level. How should a government navigate representative government when there is sovereignty at different degrees of abstraction?

Some may say that nine, or two-thirds of the states, must consent to the most important resolutions and thus that those two-thirds would always have a majority of the unions population. But this does not solve the problem of votes not well-representing their constituents. Additionally, it is just factually incorrect, as we can list nine states that contain less than a majority of the people. There are some very important matters determinable by a bare majority. It is also possible that the number of states may increase in the future, but there will be no change in the voting ratio to reflect this.

What at first may seem a solution to this problem is actually itself a poison. Congress has often found itself in a situation where absentees have made it so a single veto has been sufficient to stop all progress. A sixtieth of the union by population has several times been able to oppose the entire rest of the government. It is assumed that unanimity in government lends to security. But in reality, it saps the energy of government and substitutes the chaos of a small, corrupt group in place of the respectable majority. We are lucky if compromises can be made, as sometimes the productive administration of government is defeated. It’s so hard to get votes that the government is left in a state of inaction that borders on anarchy.

• Discussion: What do you believe are the pros and cons of majority-rule? Where should sovereignty be maintained by states, and where should it be given up to the federal government?

It’s not surprising to learn that this kind of government gives greater power to foreign corruption and domestic faction than majority rule, although some have assumed the opposite. This mistake proceeds from not recognizing the cons that come with obstructing the process of government at critical times. When it takes a large concurrence to do a national act, we will feel safe because its unlikely something dangerous will be enacted, but we forget how much good will be prevented by inaction.

Imagine we are in a war with another country and we are working with another foreign nation to fight against them. If we need to make peace, but our ally wants to continue the war for their own interests, it would be easier for them to stop us from making peace if they only have to sway a minority of votes rather than a majority. This is because they would have to bribe or manipulate fewer people. The same idea applies to foreign countries trying to mess with our decisions or to a nation trying to stop us from trading with their competitor, even if it would be good for us.

This should not be considered a hypothetical. One weakness of republics is that they are more vulnerable to foreign corruption than other forms of government. In a monarchy, the ruler has a personal interest in the country and its reputation, so it is difficult for a foreign power to bribe them to betray their own nation. There are few examples of monarchical prostitution of this kind.

In republics, politicians may find payment for betraying the trust of the people outweighs their feelings of duty. History has shown as many horrifying examples of how foreign powers can thus corrupt republican governments. How this has ruined ancient societies has already been discussed. There are many other examples as well.

Another defect remains to be mentioned: the United States lacks a proper judicial system. Without the courts to decide their meaning and use, laws are just words on a page. Without a national court system, there can be different interpretations of the same laws in different states. All nations have found it necessary to establish a Supreme Court to be a judge-of-last-resort.

This is even more necessary with the possibility of local laws conflicting with national laws. Where lower courts are the current arbiters, there will be much to fear from the bias of local biases. Whenever this happens, there may be reason to prefer the local laws to the national ones and ignore proper authority. The current treaties of the United States are liable to the infractions of thirteen different legislatures and as many courts. The faith, reputation, and peace of the union is thus continually at the mercy of local passions. How can a foreign nation respect such a government? Will the people of American trust their lives on so precarious a foundation?

In this review of the confederation, I have shown its most important problems. It should now be clear to all thoughtful people who are not biased that the system is so flawed that it cannot be fixed without major changes.

The current system for governing the United States is flawed and cannot be fixed. It is not set up to handle the powers that need to be given to the federal government. If the new constitution is not adopted, there is a risk that we will try to give more power to the current congress, which will likely lead to the government collapsing or becoming a tyranny.

The current federal system was never approved by the people. It only has the support of the state governments, so it has faced questions about whether it has the certain powers. Some people have even argued that a state government has the right to cancel its agreement to be part of the system. However gross it may be for a party to an agreement to revoke themselves from that agreement, the doctrine itself has respectable supporters. Thus it’s important to make sure the national government is built on the support of the people, not just the agreement of state governments. The power of government should rely directly from the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that original fountain of all legitimate authority.

• Discussion: Hamilton states that the power of government should spring from the consent of the governed. Modern, living Americans never voted on the Constitution. To what degree does the current government truly represent the consent of its constituents relative to being a historical artifact? How should being born into a system obligate you to the social contract formed by the consent of prior generations?

---