<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0023" id="link2H_4_0023"></SPAN></p>
<h2> FEDERALIST No. 23. The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union </h2>
<h3> From the New York Packet. Tuesday, December 18, 1787. </h3>
<p>HAMILTON</p>
<p>To the People of the State of New York:</p>
<p>THE necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one
proposed, to the preservation of the Union, is the point at the
examination of which we are now arrived.</p>
<p>This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches—the
objects to be provided for by the federal government, the quantity of
power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons upon
whom that power ought to operate. Its distribution and organization will
more properly claim our attention under the succeeding head.</p>
<p>The principal purposes to be answered by union are these—the common
defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well
against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of
commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of
our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.</p>
<p>The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise
armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government
of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These
powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE
CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are
infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be
imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power
ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such
circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils
which are appointed to preside over the common defense.</p>
<p>This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind,
carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be
made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as
they are universal; the MEANS ought to be proportioned to the END; the
persons, from whose agency the attainment of any END is expected, ought to
possess the MEANS by which it is to be attained.</p>
<p>Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of
the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for
discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will
follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers
requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown
that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible
within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position
can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary
consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to
provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter
essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the
FORMATION, DIRECTION, or SUPPORT of the NATIONAL FORCES.</p>
<p>Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this
principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it;
though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise.
Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and
money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their
requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in
fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of
them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command
whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the "common defense
and general welfare." It was presumed that a sense of their true
interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found
sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members
to the federal head.</p>
<p>The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was
ill-founded and illusory; and the observations, made under the last head,
will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning,
that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first
principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union
energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon
the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the
federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard
the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable
and unjust. The result from all this is that the Union ought to be
invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to
raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of
an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other
governments.</p>
<p>If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound
instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the
essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to discriminate
the OBJECTS, as far as it can be done, which shall appertain to the
different provinces or departments of power; allowing to each the most
ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed to its charge. Shall
the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and
armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union
must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have
relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to
every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is
the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the
proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the
authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other
that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction. Not to
confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end, would be to
violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and
improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which
are disabled from managing them with vigor and success.</p>
<p>Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as that
body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided; which, as
the centre of information, will best understand the extent and urgency of
the dangers that threaten; as the representative of the WHOLE, will feel
itself most deeply interested in the preservation of every part; which,
from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned to it, will be most
sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper exertions; and which, by
the extension of its authority throughout the States, can alone establish
uniformity and concert in the plans and measures by which the common
safety is to be secured? Is there not a manifest inconsistency in
devolving upon the federal government the care of the general defense, and
leaving in the State governments the EFFECTIVE powers by which it is to be
provided for? Is not a want of co-operation the infallible consequence of
such a system? And will not weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of
the burdens and calamities of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase
of expense, be its natural and inevitable concomitants? Have we not had
unequivocal experience of its effects in the course of the revolution
which we have just accomplished?</p>
<p>Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth,
will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny
the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects
which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most
vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in
such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite
powers. If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our
consideration, should not, upon a dispassionate inspection, be found to
answer this description, it ought to be rejected. A government, the
constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the powers
which a free people ought to delegate to any government, would be an
unsafe and improper depositary of the NATIONAL INTERESTS. Wherever THESE
can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers may safely accompany
them. This is the true result of all just reasoning upon the subject. And
the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the convention ought to have
confined themselves to showing, that the internal structure of the
proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of
the people. They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations
and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers. The POWERS are not
too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other
words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any
satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such
an excess. If it be true, as has been insinuated by some of the writers on
the other side, that the difficulty arises from the nature of the thing,
and that the extent of the country will not permit us to form a government
in which such ample powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we
ought to contract our views, and resort to the expedient of separate
confederacies, which will move within more practicable spheres. For the
absurdity must continually stare us in the face of confiding to a
government the direction of the most essential national interests, without
daring to trust it to the authorities which are indispensable to their
proper and efficient management. Let us not attempt to reconcile
contradictions, but firmly embrace a rational alternative.</p>
<p>I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system cannot
be shown. I am greatly mistaken, if any thing of weight has yet been
advanced of this tendency; and I flatter myself, that the observations
which have been made in the course of these papers have served to place
the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any matter still in
the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of. This, at all
events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself, drawn from the
extent of the country, is the strongest argument in favor of an energetic
government; for any other can certainly never preserve the Union of so
large an empire. If we embrace the tenets of those who oppose the adoption
of the proposed Constitution, as the standard of our political creed, we
cannot fail to verify the gloomy doctrines which predict the
impracticability of a national system pervading entire limits of the
present Confederacy.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />