#32: Good Behavior

Federalist essay #32 is one of seven (#30-36) about the power of taxation. Modern American citizens take it for granted that the government can and will tax them. The most remarkable thing about #32 is, perhaps, the gracious argument Hamilton makes here in support of the Constitution.

In several other Federalist essays, Hamilton resorts to name-calling and bad-mouthing his critics. Instead of responding to their complaints, he writes that the critics of the Constitution lack good judgement or even good intentions. But not here.

The issue at hand is whether the state governments would survive under the Constitution. Would they still be able to gather enough money in a system where the national government always satisfied its own demands first? Hamilton replies that, while he doesn’t think there’s cause for fear, he understands that others might be afraid, and he pledges to answers their concerns as best he can.

ALTHOUGH I am of opinion that there would be no real danger of the consequences which seem to be apprehended to the State governments from a power in the Union to control them in the levies of money, . . . yet I am willing here to allow, in its full extent, the justness of the reasoning which requires that the individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants.

Hamilton is engaging here in a technique called Rogerian Argument. Instead of always opposing the other side, the Rogerian method admits the other side may have a good point. The aim of Rogerian method is not to win a debate but to learn the truth.

In #32, Hamilton allows that it would be bad for the national government to choke off the states from the money they need. He admits that voters need assurance that that would not happen. And then he provides the reasons for that assurance.

Hamilton cites language in the Constitution (Article I, Section 10) to show that only one source of revenue (import taxes) would be denied to the states. Import taxes weren’t an important source of revenue for most states at the time, so the Constitution allowed the states to continue collecting revenue just as they had before.

There were other reasons for state and local defenders to fear. Article VI of the Constitution declares straight out that the national government does not share power with the state and local levels. Under the Constitution, authority resides first and foremost in the national government.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If the national government were supreme, how would state and local government survive? Hamilton answers easily. The voters would see to it. Local and state governments would usually be more important to the people, he thought, and voters would always prefer good local services over national priorities.

Remember, at that time, the physical distance of the nation was a serious barrier. Just to travel from one part of the country to another was an ordeal. Local governments had the tremendous advantage of being local. The national government — which at the time Hamilton was writing didn’t even have a capitol — would inevitably be far away from most part of the country.

If the sheriff in a Pennsylvania town wanted to collect a fee from a local flour mill, he could get on his horse and go and collect the fee and be home in time for lunch. If the national government at that time wanted to collect a similar tax, someone would have to begin by looking at a map and planning a journey.

Hamilton reminded readers that the national government — particularly the congress — would be made up of people the local voters had chosen. Democracy would determine that the people’s priorities would be enacted by the national government, just as it did in local and state affairs.

I am persuaded that the sense of the people, the extreme hazard of provoking the resentments of the State governments, and a conviction of the utility and necessity of local administrations for local purposes, would be a complete barrier against the oppressive use of such a power.

It gives a kind of shock to read that passage. Hamilton, in 1787, declared that he was “persuaded” that the power of the ballot and the good sense of the voters would be “a complete barrier” against bad government. In 2020, it feels to most citizens that bad government has, somehow, crept in.

Discuss

• Do you share Hamilton’s confidence in the power of the ballot to keep government in line?

• If not, what has changed? Was Hamilton’s optimism ever justified?