AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union,
none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to
break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular
governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character
and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to the dangerous
vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan
which, without violating the principles to which he is attached,
provides a proper cure for it.
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public
councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which
popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be
the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to
liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable
improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular
models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much
admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend
that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as
was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our
most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of
public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that
our governments are too unstable, that the public good is
disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are
too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the
rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an
interested and overbearing majority.
However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no
foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny
that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a
candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under
which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our
governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other
causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes;
and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of
public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed
from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly,
if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which
a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting
to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated
by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the
rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate
interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one,
by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the
one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence;
the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same
passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it
was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to
fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could
not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to
political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to
wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life,
because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be
unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is
at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As
long as the connection subsists between his reason and his
self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal
influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the
latter will attach themselves.
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights or
property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a
uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the
first object of government. From the protection of different and
unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different
degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the
influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective
proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different
interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and
we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity,
according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal
for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government,
and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an
attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for
preeminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose
fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn,
divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity,
and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other
than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this
propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no
substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and
fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their
unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
But the most common and durable source of factions has been the
various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and
those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests
in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall
under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing
interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many
lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and
divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments
and views.
The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the
principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of
party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the
government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his
interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably,
corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body
of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet
what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many
judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single
persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And
what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and
parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed
concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors
are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought
to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be,
themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other
words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall
domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by
restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be
differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and
probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public
good.
The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property
is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet
there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity
and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the
rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the
inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust
these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the
public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.
Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without
taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will
rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find
in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction
cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means
of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by
the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its
sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it
may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask
its violence under the forms of the Constitution.
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular
government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling
passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other
citizens.
To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of
such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the
form of popular government, is then the great object to which our
inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum
by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium
under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem
and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two
only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a
majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having
such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their
number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect
schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be
suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious
motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found
to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose
their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that
is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure
democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of
citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can
admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or
interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the
whole; a communication and concert result from the form of
government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to
sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or the rights of property; and have in general
been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their
deaths.
Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of
government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a
perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same
time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions,
their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of
representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises
the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in
which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both
the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from
the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a
republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the
latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly,
the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over
which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine
and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of
a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true
interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice
will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial
considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the
public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will
be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the
people themselves, convened for the purpose.
On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious
tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by
intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the
suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.
The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are
more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public
weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two
obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the
republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain
number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that,
however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number,
in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the
number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion
to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in
the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit
characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the
former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater
probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a
greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic,
it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with
success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried;
and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely
to center in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most
diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is
a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie.
By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the
representative too little acquainted with all their local
circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you
render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to
comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal
Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great
and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local
and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and
extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of
republican than of democratic government; and it is this
circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to
be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the
society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and
interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and
interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same
party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a
majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed,
the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of
oppression. Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of
parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of
the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other
citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more
difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to
act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be
remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or
dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust
in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic
has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is
enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union
over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the
substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous
sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes
of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the
Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.
Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater
variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to
outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the
increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase
this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles
opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an
unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union
gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their
particular States, but will be unable to spread a general
conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may
degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy;
but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must
secure the national councils against any danger from that source.
A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal
division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project,
will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a
particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is
more likely to taint a particular country or district, than an
entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we
behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to
republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and
pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in
cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
Signed "PUBLIUS"
|