Chapter XIX
The Same Subject
Continued
For the Independent Journal. Saturday, December 8, 1787.
MADISON, with HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
THE examples of ancient confederacies, cited in my last paper,
have not exhausted the source of experimental instruction on this subject.
There are existing institutions, founded on a similar principle, which
merit particular consideration. The first which presents itself is the
Germanic body.
In the early ages of Christianity,
Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief.
The Franks, one of the number, having conquered the Gauls, established
the kingdom which has taken its name from them. In the ninth century
Charlemagne, its warlike monarch, carried his victorious arms in every
direction; and Germany became a part of his vast dominions. On the dismemberment,
which took place under his sons, this part was erected into a separate
and independent empire. Charlemagne and his immediate descendants possessed
the reality, as well as the ensigns and dignity of imperial power. But
the principal vassals, whose fiefs had become hereditary, and who composed
the national diets which Charlemagne had not abolished, gradually threw
off the yoke and advanced to sovereign jurisdiction and independence.
The force of imperial sovereignty was insufficient to restrain such
powerful dependants; or to preserve the unity and tranquillity of the
empire. The most furious private wars, accompanied with every species
of calamity, were carried on between the different princes and states.
The imperial authority, unable to maintain the public order, declined
by degrees till it was almost extinct in the anarchy, which agitated
the long interval between the death of the last emperor of the Suabian,
and the accession of the first emperor of the Austrian lines. In the
eleventh century the emperors enjoyed full sovereignty: In the fifteenth
they had little more than the symbols and decorations of power.
Out of this feudal system, which
has itself many of the important features of a confederacy, has grown
the federal system which constitutes the Germanic empire. Its powers
are vested in a diet representing the component members of the confederacy;
in the emperor, who is the executive magistrate, with a negative on
the decrees of the diet; and in the imperial chamber and the aulic council,
two judiciary tribunals having supreme jurisdiction in controversies
which concern the empire, or which happen among its members.
The diet possesses the general power
of legislating for the empire; of making war and peace; contracting
alliances; assessing quotas of troops and money; constructing fortresses;
regulating coin; admitting new members; and subjecting disobedient members
to the ban of the empire, by which the party is degraded from his sovereign
rights and his possessions forfeited. The members of the confederacy
are expressly restricted from entering into compacts prejudicial to
the empire; from imposing tolls and duties on their mutual intercourse,
without the consent of the emperor and diet; from altering the value
of money; from doing injustice to one another; or from affording assistance
or retreat to disturbers of the public peace. And the ban is denounced
against such as shall violate any of these restrictions. The members
of the diet, as such, are subject in all cases to be judged by the emperor
and diet, and in their private capacities by the aulic council and imperial
chamber.
The prerogatives of the emperor
are numerous. The most important of them are: his exclusive right to
make propositions to the diet; to negative its resolutions; to name
ambassadors; to confer dignities and titles; to fill vacant electorates;
to found universities; to grant privileges not injurious to the states
of the empire; to receive and apply the public revenues; and generally
to watch over the public safety. In certain cases, the electors form
a council to him. In quality of emperor, he possesses no territory within
the empire, nor receives any revenue for his support. But his revenue
and dominions, in other qualities, constitute him one of the most powerful
princes in Europe.
From such a parade of constitutional
powers, in the representatives and head of this confederacy, the natural
supposition would be, that it must form an exception to the general
character which belongs to its kindred systems. Nothing would be further
from the reality. The fundamental principle on which it rests, that
the empire is a community of sovereigns, that the diet is a representation
of sovereigns and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns, renders
the empire a nerveless body, incapable of regulating its own members,
insecure against external dangers, and agitated with unceasing fermentations
in its own bowels.
The history of Germany is a history
of wars between the emperor and the princes and states; of wars among
the princes and states themselves; of the licentiousness of the strong,
and the oppression of the weak; of foreign intrusions, and foreign intrigues;
of requisitions of men and money disregarded, or partially complied
with; of attempts to enforce them, altogether abortive, or attended
with slaughter and desolation, involving the innocent with the guilty;
of general inbecility, confusion, and misery.
In the sixteenth century, the emperor,
with one part of the empire on his side, was seen engaged against the
other princes and states. In one of the conflicts, the emperor himself
was put to flight, and very near being made prisoner by the elector
of Saxony. The late king of Prussia was more than once pitted against
his imperial sovereign; and commonly proved an overmatch for him. Controversies
and wars among the members themselves have been so common, that the
German annals are crowded with the bloody pages which describe them.
Previous to the peace of Westphalia, Germany was desolated by a war
of thirty years, in which the emperor, with one half of the empire,
was on one side, and Sweden, with the other half, on the opposite side.
Peace was at length negotiated, and dictated by foreign powers; and
the articles of it, to which foreign powers are parties, made a fundamental
part of the Germanic constitution.
If the nation happens, on any emergency,
to be more united by the necessity of self-defense, its situation is
still deplorable. Military preparations must be preceded by so many
tedious discussions, arising from the jealousies, pride, separate views,
and clashing pretensions of sovereign bodies, that before the diet can
settle the arrangements, the enemy are in the field; and before the
federal troops are ready to take it, are retiring into winter quarters.
The small body of national troops,
which has been judged necessary in time of peace, is defectively kept
up, badly paid, infected with local prejudices, and supported by irregular
and disproportionate contributions to the treasury.
The impossibility of maintaining
order and dispensing justice among these sovereign subjects, produced
the experiment of dividing the empire into nine or ten circles or districts;
of giving them an interior organization, and of charging them with the
military execution of the laws against delinquent and contumacious members.
This experiment has only served to demonstrate more fully the radical
vice of the constitution. Each circle is the miniature picture of the
deformities of this political monster. They either fail to execute their
commissions, or they do it with all the devastation and carnage of civil
war. Sometimes whole circles are defaulters; and then they increase
the mischief which they were instituted to remedy.
We may form some judgment of this
scheme of military coercion from a sample given by Thuanus. In Donawerth,
a free and imperial city of the circle of Suabia, the Abbe de St. Croix
enjoyed certain immunities which had been reserved to him. In the exercise
of these, on some public occasions, outrages were committed on him by
the people of the city. The consequence was that the city was put under
the ban of the empire, and the Duke of Bavaria, though director of another
circle, obtained an appointment to enforce it. He soon
appeared before the city with a corps of ten thousand troops, and finding
it a fit occasion, as he had secretly intended from the beginning, to
revive an antiquated claim, on the pretext that his ancestors had suffered
the place to be dismembered from his territory,[1]
he took possession of it in his own name, disarmed, and punished the
inhabitants, and reannexed the city to his domains.
It may be asked, perhaps, what has
so long kept this disjointed machine from falling entirely to pieces?
The answer is obvious: The weakness of most of the members, who are
unwilling to expose themselves to the mercy of foreign powers; the weakness
of most of the principal members, compared with the formidable powers
all around them; the vast weight and influence which the emperor derives
from his separate and heriditary dominions; and the interest he feels
in preserving a system with which his family pride is connected, and
which constitutes him the first prince in Europe; - these causes support
a feeble and precarious Union; whilst the repellant quality, incident
to the nature of sovereignty, and which time continually strengthens,
prevents any reform whatever, founded on a proper consolidation. Nor
is it to be imagined, if this obstacle could be surmounted, that the
neighboring powers would suffer a revolution to take place which would
give to the empire the force and preeminence to which it is entitled.
Foreign nations have long considered themselves as interested in the
changes made by events in this constitution; and have, on various occasions,
betrayed their policy of perpetuating its anarchy and weakness.
If more direct examples were wanting,
Poland, as a government over local sovereigns, might not improperly
be taken notice of. Nor could any proof more striking be given of the
calamities flowing from such institutions. Equally unfit for self-government
and self-defense, it has long been at the mercy of its powerful neighbors;
who have lately had the mercy to disburden it of one third of its people
and territories.
The connection among the Swiss cantons
scarcely amounts to a confederacy; though it is sometimes cited as an
instance of the stability of such institutions.
They have no common treasury; no
common troops even in war; no common coin; no common judicatory; nor
any other common mark of sovereignty.
They are kept together by the peculiarity
of their topographical position; by their individual weakness and insignificancy;
by the fear of powerful neighbors, to one of which they were formerly
subject; by the few sources of contention among a people of such simple
and homogeneous manners; by their joint interest in their dependent
possessions; by the mutual aid they stand in need of, for suppressing
insurrections and rebellions, an aid expressly stipulated and often
required and afforded; and by the necessity of some regular and permanent
provision for accomodating disputes among the cantons. The provision
is, that the parties at variance shall each choose four judges out of
the neutral cantons, who, in case of disagreement, choose an umpire.
This tribunal, under an oath of impartiality, pronounces definitive
sentence, which all the cantons are bound to enforce. The competency
of this regulation may be estimated by a clause in their treaty of 1683,
with Victor Amadeus of Savoy; in which he obliges himself to interpose
as mediator in disputes between the cantons, and to employ force, if
necessary, against the contumacious party.
So far as the peculiarity of their
case will admit of comparison with that of the United States, it serves
to confirm the principle intended to be established. Whatever efficacy
the union may have had in ordinary cases, it appears that the moment
a cause of difference sprang up, capable of trying its strength, it
failed. The controversies on the subject of religion, which in three
instances have kindled violent and bloody contests, may be said, in
fact, to have severed the league. The Protestant and Catholic cantons
have since had their separate diets, where all the most important concerns
are adjusted, and which have left the general diet little other business
than to take care of the common bailages.
That separation had another consequence,
which merits attention. It produced opposite alliances with foreign
powers: of Berne, at the head of the Protestant association, with the
United Provinces; and of Luzerne, at the head of the Catholic association,
with France.
PUBLIUS
1. Pfeffel, "Nouvel
Abrég. Chronol. de l'Hist., etc., d'Allemagne," says the pretext
was to indemnify himself for the expense of the expedition.