Bryn P. and Kelly K.
To the People of the State of New York:
Rhetorical Analysis:
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 opening greeting establishes the genre of this document as
an open letter, which appropriately fits the intention of the
author, James Madison, in that it appeals to a vast, varying
audience.
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
In his first paragraph, Madison aims to evoke an since of
emotional concern (pathos) from his audience prior to explaining
his specific intention. Through the use of anaphora, Madison
lists several metaphorical interpretations, each of which concerns
the personal welfare of citizens as well as the general welfare of
the general population, for the role of the Union in the everyday
life of an American.
As Madison introduces his purpose for this letter, he employs all
three types of rhetorical appeals. First he personifies “the Union”
in his initial introduction of his argument in order to detract from
the overall rigid, political sentiment of his letter (pathos). Next
the use of the words “observations on this subject” suggests a
calculated, even scientific, approach to the analysis of his
argument and its opposition (logos). Finally, Madison asserts his
own credibility (ethos) through his discrediting of his
“adversaries[’]” warped perspective, beliefs, and actions,
punctuated by alliteration as well as diction. Specifically the
alliteration of the words “prevailing,” “prejudice,” and
“practicable” accentuates the mal-intent and absurdity of his
opponents’ actions, demonstrated through describing them as
“imaginary difficulties…they endeavor in vain to find.”
Here, again, Madison establishes his own credibility (ethos) by
referring to his (and others’) previous works on the subject.
Also, by invoking the first person, Madison establishes a
common connection among himself, the subject, and his
audience, but more importantly he uses a logical analysis (logos)
of the confusion between democracy and republicanism,
accentuating the difference through antithesis, to explain his
position from an objective, thus generally more effective, angle.
Also the use of the conjunction “and” between the words
“assemble” and “administer,” as well as the alliteration, implies
an equality of the two properties, subtly showing Madison’s
preference toward democracy for the purposes of his argument.
Madison’s carefully chosen diction, specifically the words
“accidental” and “celebrated,” and “great,” creates a commonly
effective technique used in persuasive orations: by not outwardly
denouncing the beliefs of his opponents, rather implying their
defects, Madison makes his assertion less offensive to a nonlikeminded reader, therefore making it more easily acceptable to
that portion of his audience (logos). Additionally, the use of
alliteration to connect the words, “accidental…added…artifice”
heightens the sense of his opponents’ unintentional incorrectness.
This technique also appeals to the pathos of the audience. Next,
by comparing his opponent to the monarchs of Europe, though in
a positive light, Madison still creates a negative emotional
connotation about his opponents (pathos). By repeating the
word “confusion,” Madison again softens any impulse opposition
to his position by, again, illustrating opposing opinion as
mistaken rather than simply incorrect (logos/ pathos). Madison
also conveys his definition of democracy versus republicanism
through the repetition of the word “small.”
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 thirtyfirst 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
In this paragraph, Madison continues with his logical analysis of
the mistaken definitions of democracy and republicanism by
casually inserting an ironic attribution of democratic
representation to the Europeans to whom he just previously
attributed monarchy. Following this statement, however,
Madison presents a logical if-then structure to his argument to
reestablish his claim to the superiority of the American
republican government.
Madison reinforces his logical argument by creating an
emotional connection between republicanism and patriotic
Americanism, thus creating a feeling of obligation for Americans
to support a republican government (i.e. Madison’s position).
Most notable in this section are Madison’s diction and
personification: “lamented” and “deprived” and “her.”
Madison presents and refutes some of the perceived flaws of his
argument beginning in this paragraph and continuing into the
following. In debunking specific opposition to his argument,
Madison further asserts his credibility and the validity of his
argument (ethos). The argument still maintains a sense of logical
organization in the use of “as” and “so.” Furthermore, Madison
presents a rhetorical question that is key to his argument, and
seemingly in the same breath, he answers it, further establishing
the foundation of his argument by logically bolstering his own
credibility. Also in this instance, Madison uses “the greater”
scheme for logical invention by deducing the effectiveness of the
large boundaries of a republic from the properties of the small
boundaries of a true democracy.
By returning to the first person in this paragraph, Madison again
creates a connection among himself, his audience, and his
subject, but in this specific instance, using the word “we”
increases the emotional connection among all parties but also
further establishes Madison’s credibility by reiterating his own
investments in the country and therefore his personal concern for
its wellbeing. The use of the word “actual” also lends itself to
the logical (i.e. factual) basis of Madison’s argument. Madison
continues his logical appeal throughout the paragraph by
presenting factual statistics about the size of the Union and its
effect on the efficacy of the proposed republican government.
Use and repetition of the word “computing” additionally adds to
the precise, mathematical foundations of this part of Madison’s
argument; however, by discussing the irregularities of the
Union’s boundaries and subsequently creating calculations based
on averages, Madison precludes any possible counterargument
that his data are skewed, thus creating a practical, credible
foundation for this portion of his argument as well.
be eight hundred and sixty-eight miles and threefourths. 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.
Herein Madison continues his logical, mathematical analysis
through comparison with European countries (thus refuting them
as possible pieces of evidence for his detractors). Additionally,
this comparison shows a logical assessment in proving that
similar scenarios to the proposed republican government in
America have been previously effective in Europe.
This comparably short paragraph, which stands clearly
marked from its surroundings, transitions the article from its
general introduction to an enumeration of specific points.
The careful construction of the paragraph, or rather
sentence, creates a cliffhanger effect, causing an reader to
desire to continue reading and discover what could possibly
be “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 selfpreservation, to reinstate them in their proper
jurisdiction.
For the remainder of the article, Madison enumerates his four
specific points using a simple first-second-third method of
organization. Cleverly, Madison uses the word “enumerated” in
this paragraph, subtly accentuating his premise of organization.
By explaining the jurisdiction of the government under the
proposed government, Madison simultaneously illustrates the
possibility of republican government to effectively govern a large
area and dismiss several of the fundamental arguments against
the principle of a republican government. Also, by asserting that
a republic would, in fact, not be preferential to any particular
group, Madison addresses popular ethical concerns about a
republic. Also by dispelling a situation in which the federal
government were to abolish the state governments (by
demonstrating their mutual reliance on one another), Madison
provides a logical answer (logos) to another ethical concern
(pathos). Furthermore, the use of the subjunctive mood in this
scenario, conveys the unlikelihood of the situation altogether.
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.
Continuing with his logical organization, Madison does not
understate, but rather over simplifies the purpose of the
Constitution, again, to make it seem more feasible. Additionally,
Madison applies a mathematical lexicon to his writing, further
implying a calculated, precise nature of the Constitution.
Let it be remarked, in the third place, that the
In this paragraph, Madison addresses other Federalist concerns
(internal improvements) in light of the possible new Constitution.
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
By discussing both of his agendas in a light of co-dependency,
Madison creates an easily accessible sense of necessity for both
items. He continues to use mathematical diction, but also his
diction , specifically “beneficence of nature,” portrays the canal
system as not only useful but also as a natural progression in
development. Despite the concern of his time over the excess of
power of the Federal government, especially with regards to
internal improvement, Madison indiscreetly neglects to address
such concerns.
Madison continues to build to a climax in his letter. In this
paragraph, Madison introduces a new metaphor for the Union,
comparing it to a body with a “heart” and “circulation,” a
common oratory practice, which immediately evokes sentiments
of livelihood (as well as spiritedness). In this section, Madison
addresses the logical concern over the unequal distribution of
benefits to the states, but as opposed to previous sections, he
presents an emotionally based response. First, Madison implies
that all states are interconnect through his metaphor of
“circulation,” but then he creates a logical assessment of the
differing needs of the states. In response to his own assessment,
Madison proceeds to answer using certain frightening diction to
illustrate an emotional basis for his logical argument. Madison’s
concluding sentence returns to pure logical deduction, supported
by further use of mathematical (scientific) diction.
In this lengthy conclusion, Madison again returns to the first
person, illustrating the mutual investment in the prosperity of the
Union shared by his “fellow citizens and him. While flattering
his audience and their good judgment, Madison reiterates the
“error” of his opponents through melodramatic diction. By
connecting the idea of good judgment with the “error” of his
opponents, Madison immediately compels his sagacious audience
to prefer his proposal to the other, if even subconsciously, again
apply an effective oratory technique to his letter. As in the first
paragraph, Madison uses anaphora, in this instance to illustrate
the power and conviction of his declaration and returns to
metaphor (of knitting in this case) to illustrate the
interconnectedness (all the lines of his motif of co-dependence)
of appendages of the Union. Madison also simultaneously creates
a metaphor of the Union as a family as well as the repetition of
the word “mutual” to increase the emotional attachment of his
audience and further demonstrate his motif.
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.
In this section, Madison returns to the body metaphor of the
Union, which he subtly connects to his readers through mention
of their own body parts. Madison’s melodramatic language
continues through this section of the paragraph, and as he builds
toward a climax, Madison uses asyndeton to leave his assertion
still feeling incomplete, compelling readers to continue. Also,
notably, Madison has entirely stopped making logical appeals to
his audience, demonstrating that he has already outlined his
argument and now in his conclusion, he seeks to thoroughly
impress it in the mind of his audience.
Madison continues his appeal to the pathos of his audience
through two rhetorical questions. In contrast to his previous
rhetorical question, which was intended to illustrate a logical
concept, Madison does not answer these questions so as to leave
his audience to ponder them. Also in this section Madison
appeals to the ethos of his audience through an allusion to the
Declaration of Independence.
Madison employs antithesis to illustrate two contrasting concepts
of the Union and the government.
Again through melodramatic diction (as well as the less
important metaphor of weight), Madison demonstrates the
inadequacy of the alternatives to both the American Revolution
and now the formation of a republican government. Though the
appeal may seem logical, the reference to the Revolution and the
patriotic emotions associated therewith in conjunction with the
proposition of a republican government makes the appeal most
effective on an emotional level.
Madison also introduces the idea of the infancy of the idea of
republicanism, hence there is no previous model to guide it, in
order to refute and lessen claims based on the flaws of the
republican system. This notion becomes the foundation of
Madison’s final assertion: that it is the duty of Americans to form
a more perfect Union, as it were, through convention on the
Constitution.
Madison does not conclude his letter forcefully, but rather simply
presents all of the benefits of his proposal in comparison to all of
the demerits of his opponents’ proposal, leaving the people to
deliberate and decide. By avoiding an overt imposition of his
own proposal on his audience, Madison applies one final oratory
technique to his letter: the audience will more likely accept his
proposal, rather than resist it, because Madison does not force
them down a metaphorical path but rather leads them to a fork
and allows them to choose the better of the, which he has clearly
demonstrated to be his rather than that of his opponents.