The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
To the People of the State of New York:
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 this 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 a minority of
the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed
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
of 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 pre-eminence 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
co-operate 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 in 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 centre 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
representatives 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 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 county 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.