FRtR > Documents > The Anti-Federalist Papers > 14
The Anti-Federalist Papers
The Constitutional Convention Debates
*** Index
* Quote
* Context ***
- DR. JOHNSON:
-
On a comparison of the two plans which had
been proposed from Virginia and New Jersey, it appeared that
the peculiarity which characterized the latter was its being calculated to preserve the individuality of the States. The plan from
Virginia did not profess to destroy this individuality altogether,
but was charged with such a tendency. One Gentleman alone,
Colonel Hamilton, in his animadversions on the plan of New
Jersey, boldly and decisively contended for an abolition of the
State Governments. Mr. Wilson and the gentlemen from Virginia
who also were adversaries of the plan of New Jersey held a
different language. They wished to leave the States in possession
of a considerable, though a subordinate jurisdiction. They had
not yet however shown how this could consist with, or be
secured against the general sovereignty and jurisdiction, which
they proposed to give to the national Government. If this could
be shown in such a manner as to satisfy the patrons of the New
Jersey propositions, that the individuality of the States would not
be endangered, many of their objections would no doubt be
removed. If this could not be shown their objections would have
their full force. He wished it therefore to be well considered
whether in case the States as was proposed, should retain some
portion of sovereignty at least, this portion could be preserved
without allowing them to participate effectually in the General
Government, without giving them each a distinct and equal vote
for the purpose of defending themselves in the general Councils.
-
- respect for Dr. Johnson, added to the
importance of the subject led him to attempt, unprepared as he was, to
solve the difficulty which had been started. It was asked how the
General Government and individuality of the particular States
could be reconciled to each other, and how the latter could be
secured against the former. Might it not, on the other side be
asked how the former was to be secured against the latter. It was
generally admitted that a jealousy and rivalry, would be felt
between the General and particular Governments. As the plan
now stood, though indeed contrary to his opinion, one branch of
the General Government, the Senate or second branch, was to be
appointed by the State Legislatures. The State Legislatures,
therefore, by this participation in the General Government would
have an opportunity of defending their rights. Ought not a
reciprocal opportunity to be given to the General Government of
defending itself by having an appointment of some on
constitutent branch of the State Government. If a security be necessary on
one side, it would seem reasonable to demand it on the other.
But taking the matter in a more general view, he saw no danger
to the States from the General Government. In case a
combination should be made by the large ones it would produce a general
alarm among the rest, and the project would be frustrated. But
there was no temptation to such a project. The States having in
general a similar interest, in case of any proposition in the
National Legislature to encroach on the State Legislatures, he
conceived a general alarm would take place in the National
Legislature itself, that it would communicate itself to the State
Legislatures, and would finally spread among the people at
large. The General Government will be as ready to preserve the
rights of the States as the latter are to preserve the rights of
individuals, all the members of the former, having a common
interest, as representatives of all the people of the latter, to leave
the State Governments in possession of what the people wish
them to retain. He could not discover, therefore any danger
whatever on the side from which it had been apprehended. On
the contrary, he conceived that in spite of every precaution the
general Government would be in perpetual danger of encroachments from the State Governments.
- MR. MADISON
- was of opinion that there was
- Less danger of encroachment from the General Government than from the
State Government.
- That the mischief from encroachments would be less fatal if made by the
former, than if made by the
latter.
-
All the examples of other confederacies prove the
greater tendency in such systems to anarchy than to tyranny, to a
disobedience of the members than to usurpations of the federal
head. Our own experience had fully illustrated this tendency.
But it will be said that the proposed change in the principles
and form of the Union will vary the tendency, that the General
Governments will have real and greater powers, and will be
derived in one branch at least from the people, not fiom the
Government of the States. To give full force to this objection, let
it be supposed for a moment that indefinite power should be
given to the General Legislature, and the States reduced to
corporations dependent on the General Legislature. Why should
it follow that the General Government would take from the
States any branch of their power as far as its operation was
beneficial, and its continuance desirable to the people. In some
of the States, particularly in Connecticut, all the Townships are
incorporated, and have a certain limited jurisdiction. Have the
Representatives of the people of the Townships in the Legislature
of the State ever endeavored to despoil the Townships of any
part of their local authority. As far as this local authority is
convenient to the people they are attached to it, and their
representatives chosen by and amenable to them naturally
respect their attachment to this, as much as their attachment to any
other right or interest. The relation of a General Government to
State Governments is paralle.
- Guards were more necessary
against encroachments of the State Governments on the General
Government than of the latter on the former. The great objection
made against an abolition of the State Government was that the
General Government could not extend its care to all the minute
objects which fall under the cognizance of the local jurisdictions.
The objection as stated lay not against the probable abuse of the
general power, but against the imperfect use that could be made
of it throughout so great an extent of country, and over so great a
variety of objects. As far as as its operation would be practicable
it could not in this view be improper, as far as it would be
impracticable, the conveniency of the General Government itself
would concur with that of the people in the maintenance of
subordinate Governments. Were it practicable for the General
Government to extend its care to every requisite object without
the coopeMtion of the State Governments the people would not
be less free as members of one great Republic than as members
of thirteen small ones. A Citizen of Delaware was not more free
than a Citizen of Virginia, nor would either be more free than a
Citizen of America. Supposing therefore a tendency in the Gen
eral Government to absorb the State Governments no fatal consequence could result. Taking the reverse of the supposition, that a
tendency should be left in the State Governments towards an
independence on the General Government and the gloomy consequences need not be pointed out. The imagination of them, must
have suggested to the States the experiment we are now making
to prevent the calamity, and must have formed the chief motive
with those present to undertake the arduous task.