THE PUSHPIN PUNDIT

Madison in Federalist No. 45: Happiness, not Federalism, is the Goal

(posted September 12, 2006)

James Madison (1751-1836) was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, a collection of essays that advocated the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In Federalist No. 45, Madison responded to opponents who argued that the Constitution would be dangerous to the power of state governments. Madison’s response was in two parts. First, he argued that preserving the power of states against the federal government was not a value in itself. Second, he sought to reassure people that the federal government would not grow substantially in power. Madison’s reassurances on the latter issue may have been somewhat insincere, and many of his predictions about the future balance of power between the federal government and the states have proved false. But the first part of Madison’s response has stood the test of time, especially as it expresses utilitarian views:

[I]f… the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?

It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.

Back to Philosophy Main Page

Back to Public Law Main Page

Permanent link to this post:  http://www.pushpinpundit.com/v1n14091206.htm