| 
			
				|  |  
				| 
					
						| If History Interests You, then This Section of the 
						Site is For You |  |  
				| 
					
						| Back | Federalist 
						No. 14 Objections to the Proposed 
						Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered - From 
						the New York Packet. Friday, November 30, 1787.
 | Next |  |  
				| Author: James Madison 
 To the People of the State of New York:
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 Favorable as this view of the subject may be, some observations 
				remain which will place it in a light still more satisfactory.
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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 fellowcitizens 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.
 
 PUBLIUS.
 |  
				|  |  
				|  |  
				|  |  |