<p>PUBLIUS <SPAN name="link2H_4_0014" id="link2H_4_0014"></SPAN></p>
<h2> FEDERALIST No. 14. Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered </h2>
<h3> From the New York Packet. Friday, November 30, 1787. </h3>
<p>MADISON</p>
<p>To the People of the State of New York:</p>
<p>WE HAVE seen the necessity of the Union, as our bulwark against foreign
danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of
our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those
military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the Old
World, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have
proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms
have been betrayed by our own. All that remains, within this branch of our
inquiries, is to take notice of an objection that may be drawn from the
great extent of country which the Union embraces. A few observations on
this subject will be the more proper, as it is perceived that the
adversaries of the new Constitution are availing themselves of the
prevailing prejudice with regard to the practicable sphere of republican
administration, in order to supply, by imaginary difficulties, the want of
those solid objections which they endeavor in vain to find.</p>
<p>The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been
unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems
to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic
with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature
of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted
to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and
exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and
administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy,
consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended
over a large region.</p>
<p>To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some
celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the
modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an
absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the
advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison
the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the
latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under
the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic
observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the
observation that it can never be established but among a small number of
people, living within a small compass of territory.</p>
<p>Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as most of the popular
governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in
modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no
example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same
time, wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering
this great mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which
the will of the largest political body may be concentred, and its force
directed to any object which the public good requires, America can claim
the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive
republics. It is only to be lamented that any of her citizens should wish
to deprive her of the additional merit of displaying its full efficacy in
the establishment of the comprehensive system now under her consideration.</p>
<p>As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central
point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often
as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than
can join in those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that
distance from the centre which will barely allow the representatives to
meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public
affairs. Can it be said that the limits of the United States exceed this
distance? It will not be said by those who recollect that the Atlantic
coast is the longest side of the Union, that during the term of thirteen
years, the representatives of the States have been almost continually
assembled, and that the members from the most distant States are not
chargeable with greater intermissions of attendance than those from the
States in the neighborhood of Congress.</p>
<p>That we may form a juster estimate with regard to this interesting
subject, let us resort to the actual dimensions of the Union. The limits,
as fixed by the treaty of peace, are: on the east the Atlantic, on the
south the latitude of thirty-one degrees, on the west the Mississippi, and
on the north an irregular line running in some instances beyond the
forty-fifth degree, in others falling as low as the forty-second. The
southern shore of Lake Erie lies below that latitude. Computing the
distance between the thirty-first and forty-fifth degrees, it amounts to
nine hundred and seventy-three common miles; computing it from thirty-one
to forty-two degrees, to seven hundred and sixty-four miles and a half.
Taking the mean for the distance, the amount will be eight hundred and
sixty-eight miles and three-fourths. The mean distance from the Atlantic
to the Mississippi does not probably exceed seven hundred and fifty miles.
On a comparison of this extent with that of several countries in Europe,
the practicability of rendering our system commensurate to it appears to
be demonstrable. It is not a great deal larger than Germany, where a diet
representing the whole empire is continually assembled; or than Poland
before the late dismemberment, where another national diet was the
depositary of the supreme power. Passing by France and Spain, we find that
in Great Britain, inferior as it may be in size, the representatives of
the northern extremity of the island have as far to travel to the national
council as will be required of those of the most remote parts of the
Union.</p>
<p>Favorable as this view of the subject may be, some observations remain
which will place it in a light still more satisfactory.</p>
<p>In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is
not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws.
Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern
all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the
separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend
their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided
for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the
plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular
States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though
it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general
government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to
reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.</p>
<p>A second observation to be made is that the immediate object of the
federal Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive
States, which we know to be practicable; and to add to them such other
States as may arise in their own bosoms, or in their neighborhoods, which
we cannot doubt to be equally practicable. The arrangements that may be
necessary for those angles and fractions of our territory which lie on our
northwestern frontier, must be left to those whom further discoveries and
experience will render more equal to the task.</p>
<p>Let it be remarked, in the third place, that the intercourse throughout
the Union will be facilitated by new improvements. Roads will everywhere
be shortened, and kept in better order; accommodations for travelers will
be multiplied and meliorated; an interior navigation on our eastern side
will be opened throughout, or nearly throughout, the whole extent of the
thirteen States. The communication between the Western and Atlantic
districts, and between different parts of each, will be rendered more and
more easy by those numerous canals with which the beneficence of nature
has intersected our country, and which art finds it so little difficult to
connect and complete.</p>
<p>A fourth and still more important consideration is, that as almost every
State will, on one side or other, be a frontier, and will thus find, in
regard to its safety, an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake
of the general protection; so the States which lie at the greatest
distance from the heart of the Union, and which, of course, may partake
least of the ordinary circulation of its benefits, will be at the same
time immediately contiguous to foreign nations, and will consequently
stand, on particular occasions, in greatest need of its strength and
resources. It may be inconvenient for Georgia, or the States forming our
western or northeastern borders, to send their representatives to the seat
of government; but they would find it more so to struggle alone against an
invading enemy, or even to support alone the whole expense of those
precautions which may be dictated by the neighborhood of continual danger.
If they should derive less benefit, therefore, from the Union in some
respects than the less distant States, they will derive greater benefit
from it in other respects, and thus the proper equilibrium will be
maintained throughout.</p>
<p>I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, these considerations, in full
confidence that the good sense which has so often marked your decisions
will allow them their due weight and effect; and that you will never
suffer difficulties, however formidable in appearance, or however
fashionable the error on which they may be founded, to drive you into the
gloomy and perilous scene into which the advocates for disunion would
conduct you. Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the
people of America, knit together as they are by so many cords of
affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can
no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no
longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing
empire. Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the form
of government recommended for your adoption is a novelty in the political
world; that it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest
projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to accomplish.
No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut
your hearts against the poison which it conveys; the kindred blood which
flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have
shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite
horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if
novelties are to be shunned, believe me, the most alarming of all
novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts,
is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and
promote our happiness. But why is the experiment of an extended republic
to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the
glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent
regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not
suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to
overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their
own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly
spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for
the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American
theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness. Had no important
step been taken by the leaders of the Revolution for which a precedent
could not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model
did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at this
moment have been numbered among the melancholy victims of misguided
councils, must at best have been laboring under the weight of some of
those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest of mankind.
Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they
pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which
has no parallel in the annals of human society. They reared the fabrics of
governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the
design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors
to improve and perpetuate. If their works betray imperfections, we wonder
at the fewness of them. If they erred most in the structure of the Union,
this was the work most difficult to be executed; this is the work which
has been new modelled by the act of your convention, and it is that act on
which you are now to deliberate and to decide.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />