The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of 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 self-government 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 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 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.

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 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 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.