Upon discovering a crucial error in the book Heritage Studies by Eileen Berry, I contacted the publisher BJU Press in order to report it. I informed the publisher that the author incorrectly refers to the offices of government in Washington, D.C., as representing the “national government.” I advised that this term is incorrect, as the Founding Fathers of the United States described the form of government primarily as the “general government” or, otherwise, as the “federal government” or “central government.” I stressed that this is not merely a matter of semantics but a critically important distinction, as it represents the critical attitudes and apprehensions at the time of America’s founding, as well as the intentional preservation of sovereignty among each of the several states in the Union: states recognized as independent at the signing of the Treaty of Paris; states comprising a "confederacy" under the Articles of Confederation (whereby Article II dictated that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled"); states which later affirmed their sovereignty in their very ratification of the Constitution; and states whose sovereignty and independence are secured by the Bill of Rights (particularly the Tenth Amendment, which preserves the spirit of Article II from the Articles of Confederation) and by the “Republican” (not “national”) form of government guaranteed to the several states through their ratification of the Constitution (per Article IV, Section 4).
I concluded my remarks in an appeal to accuracy and to the idea that we must remain absolutely committed to the truth as indispensable to education as true north is to navigation: “Please advise as to how we can together proceed to ensure that the necessary revisions are made for the benefit of students whose access to the truth depends upon our accuracy and our commitment to delivering it.”
Instead of a cooperative attitude, however, the publishers doubled down with the following reply: “On an elementary level, we are using the term ‘national government’ to differentiate from ‘state government.’ Historically, the term ‘national government’ is used to describe the three branches of government, for example, in Madison's Virginia Plan and throughout the Federalist Papers.”
Of course, the terms I’ve supplied not only accomplish the same objective in “differentiating from ‘state government’” and “describing the three branches of government”; they also have sturdier foundations in history — not merely in a narrow application by one man or a particular political faction, not in service to a specific purpose or in use as a particular political device. On the contrary, the terms I’ve referenced are not only more accurate and consistent in describing the designs of American government, but importantly they had the agreement of all parties to the Constitution that established the new form of government in 1787. As for BJU Press, on the other hand, they justify their preferred term, ‘national’, through select applications of one man, James Madison, who himself even shared in the general preference for the terminology I’ve articulated.
Indeed, James Madison’s preferred term for the new government under the Constitution was undoubtedly “federal,” a word that dominated the Federalist Papers and reflected the prevailing consensus after the Constitutional Convention. While Madison initially used the term “national” in the context of debate — most notably in his Virginia Plan, which proposed a “national legislature,” “national executive,” and “national judiciary” — this language was met with strong opposition from other delegates who feared the loss of state sovereignty. As a result, the Convention ultimately rejected the term “national” in its entirety — settling instead on the more moderate and widely acceptable terms “federal” or “general”, or ultimately “Republican” (as declared in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution), in describing the offices of government in the Union’s capital in New York City (later Philadelphia, then Washington, D. C.); with the term “federal” preserving the vital principle of sovereignty among the several states, and the term “Republican” preserving the concept of just government based on the consent of the governed. Accordingly, the first U.S. capitol building is located in New York City, and it was named “Federal Hall”, not “National Hall”.
In Federalist No. 45, Madison clearly described the structure of just the kind of government he had in mind: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” He referred to it as the “general government” in emphasizing its limited, enumerated authority: “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the general government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.”
The fact remains that the government established by the Constitution was not “national” but republican, rooted in the sovereignty of the people and the states. The common ground among all parties to the Constitution was that the central government (in what would become Washington, D.C.) was a “general,” “central,” “federal”, or “Republican” government — not a national one. Nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the official records of the Conventions, is there any authorization for, or accession to, a national form of government. Thomas Jefferson affirmed this in a 1798 letter, writing, “The several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government... but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution.” In another letter, he emphasized, “The States are independent as to everything within themselves.” These declarations support the view that the Constitution formed a compact among sovereign states, creating a federal — not national — union.
Indeed, even the Preamble itself, often cited as evidence of national consolidation, actually affirms the federal nature of the Union: as the record of history shows, its phrase ‘We the People of the United States’ actually replaced an earlier draft naming each state individually. The prior language was ultimately replaced merely to account for the possibility that some of the states might not ratify the Constitution. And bear in mind that at that time — indeed, up until the time of the War between the States — the phrase ‘United States’ was universally used and understood in the plural, not the singular, denoting the sovereignty of the several states joined in the compact.
As Benjamin Franklin famously remarked at the close of the Convention, when asked what kind of government had been created: “A republic — if you can keep it.”
Not a nation, nor a democracy; not a kingdom, nor an empire, but a federal constitutional republic composed of sovereign states.
This distinction between a national and a federal system is not merely semantic — it is essential for students seeking to understand the true nature of the American constitutional order, as well as the attitudes and cultural backdrop attending the creation of a system established not to dominate ‘nationally’ but to preserve state sovereignty and to protect life, liberty, and property: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.
Comments
Post a Comment