See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
[January 16, 1788]
To the People of New York.
The last essay introduced the plan of government proposed by the Constitutional Convention. Now it’s time to assess that plan in detail.
The first question we should ask is whether the government established by the Constitution is truly republican. No other form of government would be compatible with the character of the American people, the principles of the Revolution, or the firm belief—held by every true supporter of liberty—that all political experiments must be built on humanity’s capacity for self-government. If the proposed Constitution strays from this republican ideal, it must be abandoned as indefensible.
What Makes a Government Republican?
If we judged by how the term republic has been applied to different countries, we’d never get a satisfactory answer. Consider these examples: In Holland, where not a shred of power is derived from the people, the government has long been called a republic. Venice, where small body of hereditary nobles holds absolute power, is also known as a republic. Even Poland, with its chaotic mix of monarchy and aristocracy, bears the same title. England, which combines a hereditary monarchy and aristocracy with a single popularly elected branch, has sometimes been grouped among republics as well. These examples—so different from each other and from a genuine republic—show how loosely the term has been used.
A better way to define a republic is by looking at its core principles. A republic is a government that draws all its powers—either directly or indirectly—from the great body of the people. It is administered by officials who hold office for a limited term, during good behavior, or at the people’s pleasure. It’s essential that such a government draws its authority from the broad society, not from a small elite or privileged class. Otherwise, a small group of oppressive nobles could claim the title of republicans simply by delegating power among themselves.
It’s sufficient for a government to be considered republican if its officials are appointed—directly or indirectly—by the people and serve under one of these forms of tenure. Without that structure, even the best-organized governments, including those in the United States, would decline into something less than republican.
In every state constitution, at least some officials are chosen only indirectly by the people. In most states, even the governor is chosen this way. One state even uses this process to choose one branch of its legislature. Across all the state constitutions, the highest offices have clearly defined terms. In many cases—both in the legislative and executive branches—these terms last for several years. Meanwhile, most state constitutions, following widely respected opinions on the subject, agree that judges should retain their offices under the stable tenure of good behavior.
When we compare the proposed Constitution to these standards, it clearly meets them. The House of Representatives, like at least one branch of every state legislature, is elected directly by the people. The Senate, like the current Congress and the Maryland Senate, is appointed indirectly. The president is also chosen through an indirect process, similar to what many states use for their governors. Even the judges and other federal officers will ultimately be the people’s choice, albeit through several layers of delegation.
The length of these appointments is also consistent with republican principles. The House is elected every two years—just like in South Carolina. Senators serve six-year terms, only slightly longer than the terms in Maryland’s Senate (five years) or in the Senates of New York and Virginia (four years). The president serves a four-year term, similar to the governors in New York and Delaware, who serve three-year terms, or in South Carolina, where the term is two years. In some states, there’s no explicit process for impeaching the governor; in Delaware and Virginia, impeachment can’t happen until the official leaves office. By contrast, the president of the United States can be impeached at any time during his term. Federal judges, like their counterparts in the states, will hold office during good behavior. Most other federal offices will follow rules similar to those in state constitutions.
If more proof were needed that this system is republican, it could be found in its explicit prohibition of titles of nobility¹—both in the federal and state governments—and in the guarantee that every state will have a republican form of government.
Federal vs. National Government
Some critics of the Constitution argue that the Convention should have preserved the federal form of government, which treats the union as a confederacy of sovereign states. Instead, they claim it created a national government that consolidates the states into a single entity. This is a serious objection and deserves a closer look.
To understand whether the proposed government is federal or national, we can analyze five key aspects: (1) the foundation of its authority, (2) the source of its powers, (3) the way those powers operate, (4) the extent of its powers, and (5) how amendments can be made.
1. Foundation of Authority
The Constitution is based on the consent of the people, given through deputies elected for that purpose. But this consent comes from the people as members of distinct states—not as a single national body. Each state’s ratification is a federal act, not a national one. This is clear because the Constitution will only take effect with the unanimous consent of the states that choose to join. If the people were treated as a single nation, a majority of the total population could bind the minority. Instead, each state acts as a sovereign entity and is only bound by its own decision.
2. Source of Powers
The House of Representatives draws its power directly from the people and represents them proportionally—making this part of the government national. The Senate, however, represents the states as equal political entities—making it federal. The president’s election blends both: states participate as political bodies, but the votes are weighted partly by population. This creates a mixed system with both federal and national elements.
3. Operation of Powers
Critics say a federal government acts on states as collective entities, while a national government acts on individuals. By this definition, the proposed government has a national character because its powers primarily apply to individuals rather than states. This is true for most day-to-day operations, though in some cases—especially when states are parties to disputes—the government will treat them as distinct political bodies.
4. Extent of Powers
In a fully national government, the central authority would have unlimited power. But in this system, the federal government’s powers are limited to specific areas, while the states retain inviolable sovereignty over everything else. In this respect, the Constitution is clearly federal.
5. Amendment Process
If the government were wholly national, amendments would be decided by a majority of the national population. If it were wholly federal, every state would have to agree. The actual process blends the two: amendments require more than a simple majority, and the votes are counted by state, not by population. This makes the system part federal and part national.
A Mixed System
When judged by the standards set by its critics, the proposed Constitution is neither purely national nor purely federal—it’s a combination of both. Its foundation is federal. The source of its powers is partly federal and partly national. Its powers operate in a national way but are limited in federal fashion. Even the amendment process combines elements of both systems.
— Publius
¹ Titles of Nobility: A legal or honorary status conferring hereditary privilege, like “duke” or “earl,” which was explicitly banned in the U.S. Constitution to prevent the rise of an aristocracy.
See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
teddy ray 