45-46: A Discussion of the Supposed Danger From the Union Over the State Governments

The Federalist 45:

Written by James Madison

After demonstrating that each power transferred to the federal government is necessary and proper, we must now consider if the collective powers given to the federal government pose a threat to the authority that remains with the states.

Critics of the Constitution have focused more on the potential impact of these powers on state governments than on what powers are truly necessary for the federal government. However, if we agree that the union is crucial for protecting Americans from foreign threats, preventing conflicts between states, and safeguarding against oppressive factions and military overreach, then the importance of the union is clear. If the union is essential for the people’s happiness, it doesn’t make sense to oppose a federal government that is necessary to achieve these goals, just because it might reduce the states’ powers. The American Revolution and the formation of the Confederacy were not about empowering state governments, but about ensuring peace, liberty, and safety for the people. We remember the old notion that people exist for the benefit of kings, not the other way around. We must not adopt a similar view in America, where the well-being of the people is sacrificed for the sake of state governments. The primary goal is always the public good and the happiness of the people. Any government’s value comes from how well it achieves this goal. If the proposed Constitution or even the union itself were harmful to public happiness, they should be rejected or abolished. Similarly, if state sovereignty conflicts with the people’s happiness, it should be the sovereignty that is sacrificed. We’ve already discussed the necessity of this sacrifice. Now we need to examine how much of the remaining state authority is actually at risk under the proposed federal government.

In these papers, we’ve discussed several key points that suggest the federal government’s actions are unlikely to gradually destroy state governments. The more I think about this topic, the more convinced I become that the balance of power is actually more at risk of being upset by the dominance of state governments than by the federal government.

In examining both ancient and modern confederacies, we often see a pattern where member states try to weaken the central government’s authority, while the central government struggles to defend itself against these challenges. Although these historical examples are quite different from the system proposed in the U.S. Constitution, they still offer lessons because the states under the Constitution will retain significant powers. For instance, the Achaean League and the Lycian Confederacy, two ancient federations, had structures somewhat similar to the one proposed by the Constitutional Convention. Yet, history doesn’t show these leagues becoming centralized governments. Instead, their downfall came from the central authority’s inability to manage disagreements and prevent the breakup of the member states. These examples are especially relevant because they faced more external pressures to stay united than the United States, suggesting that even weaker internal bonds might be enough to maintain unity in the U.S.

The feudal system in Europe also showed a tendency for local rulers to overpower the central authority. Despite sometimes lacking the people’s support, local rulers often gained more power than the king or central government. If it weren’t for external threats that required a united front and, in cases where local rulers had the people’s support, Europe’s major kingdoms might now be as fragmented as they were during the feudal era when each baron was virtually independent.

The state governments hold several advantages over the federal government, which include their more direct relationship with the people, greater personal influence, the specific powers they have, the likelihood of public support, and their ability to resist and challenge federal actions.

State governments are integral to the federal system, but the federal government is not essential for state governments to function. For example, without state legislatures, the President of the United States can’t be elected. State legislatures play a major role in choosing the President and have total control over electing the Senate. Even the House of Representatives, though directly elected by the people, is significantly influenced by those who are elected to state legislatures. Therefore, the main branches of the federal government owe their existence to the state governments to some degree, making them more likely to be deferential to the states rather than domineering. In contrast, the components of state governments don’t owe their positions to the federal government or its members. This independence from federal influence strengthens the position of state governments relative to the federal government.

The number of people working under the U.S. Constitution will be much smaller than those employed by individual states. This means the federal government will have less personal influence compared to the states. Consider the legislative, executive, and judicial employees across thirteen states (and more as the nation grows), including local justices of the peace, militia officers, and various local officials for a population of over three million. These state employees, who are closely connected with all segments of the population, far outnumber and have more influence than those working for the federal government. When you compare the employees of the three main branches of government in the thirteen states to those in the corresponding federal branches, or compare state militia officers to federal military personnel, the states clearly have the upper hand in terms of numbers and influence. Even if the federal government employs tax collectors, state governments will have many more, spread across the country. Federal tax collectors will likely be fewer and concentrated mainly on the coast. Though the federal government can collect both internal and external taxes, it’s expected that this power will be used mainly for additional revenue needs. States might be given the option to collect their contributions first, and federal collections would probably be done through state-appointed officers following state rules. In many cases, such as in the judiciary, state officers might also serve as federal officers. Even if the federal government employs its own internal revenue collectors, their influence would be minor compared to the multitude of state officers. In any area with a federal collector, there would be many more state officers, often influential people, whose loyalty lies with the state.

The proposed Constitution gives the federal government limited and specific powers. These powers mainly involve dealing with other countries, like matters of war, peace, negotiations, and international trade. Taxation is mostly related to these areas too. On the other hand, state governments will hold a broader and less defined set of powers. These will cover issues that directly affect people’s daily lives, freedoms, and property, as well as the internal management, development, and well-being of each state.

In times of war and crisis, the federal government will play a bigger and more crucial role. However, during peacetime and stability, state governments will have a more significant part. Since peace is more common than war, state governments will generally have more influence than the federal government. The stronger and more capable the federal government is in defending the nation, the less often dangerous situations will arise that could increase the power of the federal government over the state governments.

When examined carefully and fairly, it’s clear that the main change proposed by the new Constitution is not so much the addition of new powers to the federal government, but rather strengthening its existing powers. True, regulating commerce is a new power, but this is generally accepted and not seen as problematic. The powers related to war, peace, armies, navies, treaties, and finances, along with other major powers, are already given to Congress by the Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution doesn’t increase these powers but simply makes them more effective. The change in taxation is perhaps the most significant. However, the current Congress can already ask states for unlimited funds for national defense and general welfare. The new Congress will have the same power but will ask individuals instead of states. If the states had followed the Articles of Confederation strictly, or if their compliance could have been ensured as easily as with individuals, our past experiences don’t suggest that state governments would lose their powers or become completely merged into a single national government. To argue that the existence of state governments is incompatible with any effective national system is to misunderstand the balance intended between state and federal powers.

Discussion: Do you believe that the federal government’s power to regulate commerce is still generally accepted and not seen as problematic? How might its current role in regulating commerce compare to its role at the time of the Convention?

The Federalist 46:

Written by James Madison

The topic we’re continuing is this: which will have more of the people’s favor and support, the federal government or the state governments?

Despite their different methods of being chosen, we must view both the federal and state governments as essentially dependent on the citizens of the United States. I’m stating this now for the federal government, with evidence to be provided later. Both the federal and state governments are agents for the people, created with distinct powers for specific purposes. Critics of the Constitution seem to forget about the people when discussing this matter. They see these two levels of government as competitors and enemies, acting independently without any higher authority controlling their struggle for power. These critics need to be corrected. They should be reminded that the ultimate power lies with the people alone. The expansion of either the federal or state governments’ power will not just depend on their own ambitions or strategies. It should be considered that every outcome depends on the will and approval of the citizens.

In addition to previous arguments, it seems clear that people will naturally feel more connected to their state governments. More individuals expect to be involved in state administration and benefit from state-provided positions and rewards. State governments take care of local and personal matters for the people. The public is more familiar with state affairs and has closer personal, familial, and political relationships with state government members. Therefore, it’s reasonable to expect that people will be more inclined to favor and support their state governments.

Experience shows that even when the federal administration was very active and important, such as during the war and when paper money was still trusted, people’s attention and loyalty still went back to their state governments. The early enthusiasm for the federal Congress faded, and people focused more on their own state governments. The federal government was never the favorite of the public. Those who wanted to gain political influence usually did so by opposing any increase in the federal government’s power and importance.

If people start to favor the federal government over state governments in the future, it would only be because the federal government clearly shows it can govern better. This change in preference would be based on strong evidence of better administration at the federal level. If this happens, it’s only fair for people to place their trust where it’s most deserved. Even then, state governments don’t have much to worry about. The federal government is only effective within a certain range of issues; beyond that, it’s not suited to manage things as well as state governments can.

Discussion: How do you view modern American’s identity relationship to their state and to the federal government?

The next topics I will discuss to compare the federal and state governments are their ability and inclination to oppose and interfere with each other’s actions.

It has already been shown that members of the federal government will depend more on state governments than the other way around. The people, who both governments rely on, tend to favor state governments more. Therefore, in terms of their attitudes towards each other, state governments have an advantage. Additionally, members of the federal government are likely to have a bias in favor of states, while it’s rare for state government members to favor the federal government. Members of Congress will probably care more about local issues, similar to how state legislatures often prioritize local interests over the state’s overall well-being. This local focus in state legislatures often leads to decisions that don’t necessarily benefit the whole state. If they struggle to consider their state’s overall welfare, it’s unlikely they will prioritize the nation’s overall prosperity and the federal government’s status. Conversely, federal legislators might overly focus on local matters. Decisions in Congress are often more influenced by state interests rather than national well-being. Historical records and admissions from those who’ve been in Congress show that its members often act more as representatives of their states than as impartial guardians of national interests. However, this doesn’t mean the new federal government won’t have broader policies than existing state governments; it’s just that it will be influenced by both local and national perspectives and unlikely to infringe on state rights or powers. State governments won’t have the same incentive to expand their power at the federal government’s expense.

Even if the federal government wanted to extend its power beyond its proper limits just like state governments might, states would still be better at stopping such overreach. If a state does something that goes against the national government but is popular within that state and doesn’t blatantly break the state officers’ oaths, it will be quickly put into action with local resources. Any opposition from the federal government or interference by federal officers would only make people in the state more passionate about their position, and fixing this issue would be hard and undesirable. On the other hand, if the federal government does something unwarranted (or even warranted but unpopular) in certain states, resisting it would be easy and effective. The people’s dissatisfaction, reluctance to help federal officers, disapproval from the state’s leaders, and hurdles created by state laws would create significant challenges. These challenges would be considerable in a large state and even more so if several neighboring states shared the same opinion, presenting great obstructions that the federal government would hardly be willing to deal with.

If the federal government tries to overstep its authority and take power from the state governments, it wouldn’t just face opposition from one or a few states. Such actions would cause widespread concern among all states. Governments would unite, communicating and planning how to resist. This united response would be driven by the same spirit that opposed foreign control. If the federal government didn’t back down, this could lead to a conflict similar to the one against a foreign power. However, it’s almost unthinkable that the federal government would go this far. In the American Revolution, one part of the British Empire fought against another. The larger part infringed on the rights of the smaller part. This was unfair and unwise, but not completely unrealistic. But in a conflict between the federal government and the states, it would be a few national representatives against representatives from thirteen states, with all the people supporting their state representatives.

Discussion: How does Madison view the states’ relationship to federal law and federal enforcement?

The last argument against state governments’ survival is the unlikely idea that the federal government might build up a military for power grabs. If the arguments in these papers are valid, it’s clear this danger isn’t real. It’s far-fetched to think that the people and states would continuously elect leaders who plan to betray them, that these leaders would consistently work to grow the military for this purpose, and that everyone would just watch this happen without objecting. This seems more like paranoia or misguided enthusiasm than genuine concern. But let’s entertain this extreme idea and say the federal government did create a large army loyal only to it. Even then, state governments, with the people’s support, could still fend off such a threat. The largest possible standing army in the U.S. would be tiny compared to the militia, which would consist of hundreds of thousands of citizens with their own arms, led by officers they trust, fighting for their shared freedoms. It’s doubtful that such a militia could be defeated by a regular army. This is especially true given America’s history of resisting British forces. Americans have the unique advantage of being armed, unlike people in many other nations, and they have state governments they are loyal to. These governments appoint militia officers, creating a defense against ambitious power grabs that a centralized government can’t match. In Europe, despite large military forces, governments fear arming their people. If Europeans had arms and local governments like in America, their tyrannies would likely be quickly overthrown. It’s insulting to think that Americans, who have and cherish their freedoms, would be less capable of defending them than Europeans would be of gaining theirs. It’s even more insulting to suggest that Americans would allow themselves to be put in such a position by not resisting a series of sneaky steps leading to this scenario.

Discussion: How has the view of the standing military versus the militia changed? Is this a good thing? How might such a view of a militia relate to the Second Amendment?

The argument about the federal government’s relationship with the people can be summarized simply and decisively. The federal government will either be dependent on the people or it will not. If it is dependent on the people, this reliance will prevent it from creating plans that go against the wishes of the citizens. If it is not dependent on the people, it won’t have their trust, and any attempts it makes to overstep its power will be easily stopped by the state governments, which will have the people’s support.

After reviewing the points made in this and the previous paper, it becomes clear that the powers given to the federal government are not threatening to the powers kept by the individual states. These federal powers are absolutely necessary to achieve the goals of the union. Therefore, all the worries about the federal government intentionally destroying state governments are, at best, based on unrealistic fears of those who raise such concerns.

The Easy Federalist