Federalist #39 Summary (b)
The Federalist Papers Summary and
Analysis
by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and James Madison
Essay 39
Summary
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether or not the
framers established a republican form of government. No other
form is suited to the particular genius of the American people;
only a republican form of government can carry forward the
principles fought for in the Revolution or demonstrate that selfgovernment is both possible and practical.
Madison asks what are the distinctive characteristics of the
republican form of government. Unfortunately, Madison
continues, one cannot find the answer by reading certain books
which purport to describe the constitutions of republican nations.
Holland, Venice, and Poland are described by political writers as
republics, but the power in all three governments is not derived
from the people; it is held by kings, nobles, or a small group of
people. Since the term "republic" is loosely used, we must look to
the theoretical principles of republicanism as they have been
defined.
A republican form of government is one which derives its powers
either directly or indirectly from the people and is administered
by persons who hold public office for a limited period of time or
during good behavior. No government can be called republican
that derives its power from a few people or from a favored and
wealthy class. The Constitution conforms to these republican
principles. The people directly elect the House of
Representatives; in addition, the people indirectly select the
senators and the president. Even the judges will reflect the
choice of the people since the president appoints them, and the
senate confirms their appointment. The president, senators, and
representatives hold office for a specified and limited term;
judges are appointed for life -but subject to good behavior. The
1
Federalist #39 Summary (b)
constitutional prohibition against granting titles of nobility and
the guarantee to the states that they shall enjoy a republican
form of government is further proof that the new government is
republican in nature.
These facts do not satisfy all people. Some people claim that the
Convention destroyed the federal aspect of the government by
taking away too much power from the states. According to these
opponents, the framers established a national form of
government,- one in which the citizens' are acted upon directly -as citizens of the nation instead of citizens of the states. In
reality, the proposed government contains both national and
federal characteristics. It is true that the national government
has authority over individuals as national citizens, but in many
important respects the new plan of government is clearly federal
in its form. The principle of federalism (division of power between
the states and the national government) is reflected in the
suggested method of ratification. The delegates to the ratifying
conventions will vote as citizens of their states, not as citizens of
the nation. The federal form is also reflected in the structure of
the Senate in which the states are equally represented. The fact
that the states retain certain exclusive and important powers is
further proof of the federal nature of the proposed government.
But, Madison says, we are not going to claim that there are no
national features. Of course there are. Madison concludes that
the government in its structure is both national and federal; in
the operation of its powers, it is nation; in the extent of its
power, it is federal.
Analysis
This essay, concerning the republican nature of the Constitution,
is one essay that critics point to as having a "split personality"
with previous essays that Hamilton had penned. Madison is more
conciliatory towards the federal aspects of the government, while
Hamilton only expounds on the nationalistic aspects of the new
government. The split personality of the Federalist can be
considered the root of the dualism that became so characteristic
of American constitutional development. The disagreement over
the nature of the Union may have contributed to nullification and
succession or, for that matter, to the fight against these
2
Federalist #39 Summary (b)
institutions. Likewise, Hamilton's and Madison's differing opinions
on federalism were used when the Supreme Court interpreted
the Constitution and largely account for that Court's oscillation
between dual federalism and nationalism. Also, the authors
different conceptions of the separation of powers seem to mark
the beginning of a struggle between the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches of government, evident throughout
American history.
The originality of the Federalist papers, and the Constitution
itself, means that these men were confronted with a genuinely
democratic problem and succeeded in solving that problem, as
Madison denotes here. This alone constitutes enormous progress
in the theory and practice of government, as it existed up to their
time. Former generations had been concerned largely with the
question of how to restrict monarchial absolutism and had been
confronted with the choice of monarchy or popular government.
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, on the other hand, conceived of
popular government as the very premise for their arguments.
They did not ask whether popular government should take the
place of monarchy, as their predecessors had done. That
question had been answered in 1776. Rather, they asked about
the degree of democracy and majority rule.
Their answer was that of men who believed in the individualism
of the English heritage and their intellectual environment. They
bought forth their own concept of free government, under which
the popular majority, while governing, was restricted by a
constitution for the sake of the freedom of the individual and
under which the democratic principle of popular participation in
government, as a mere means, was subordinate to the liberal
principle of the protection of the individual, as the end of
government. Madison's description of the republican form of
government is significant because it was such a noteworthy and
novel concept in the time. The founders had solved the
democratic problem in an ingenious manner, a problem that had
plagued the European nations throughout the 19th and 20th
centuries.
3