HKB
WHAT ARE THE CHANCES IN FAVOR OF THE DURATION OF THE AMERICAN UNION, AND WHAT DANGERS THREATEN IT.
Reasons why the preponderating Force lies in the States rather than in the Union.--The Union will only last as long as all the States choose to belong to it.--Causes which tend to keep them united.--Utility of the Union to resist foreign Enemies, and to prevent the Existence of Foreigners in America.--No natural Barriers between the several States.--No conflicting Interests to divide them.--Reciprocal Interests of the Northern, Southern, and Western States.--Intellectual ties of Union.--Uniformity of Opinions.--Dangers of the Union resulting from the different Characters and the Passions of its Citizens.--Character of the Citizens in the South and in the North.--The rapid growth of the Union one of its greatest Dangers.--Progress of the Population to the Northwest.--Power gravitates in the same Direction.--Passions originating from sudden turns of Fortune.--Whether the existing Government of the Union tends to gain strength, or to lose it.--Various signs of its Decrease.--Internal Improvement.--Waste Lands.--Indians.--The Bank.--The Tariff.--General Jackson.
The maintenance of the existing institutions of the several states depends in some measure upon the maintenance of the Union itself. It is therefore important in the first instance to inquire into the probable fate of the Union. One point may indeed be assumed at once; if the present confederation were dissolved, it appears to me to be incontestable that the states of which it is now composed would not return to their original isolated condition; but that several Unions would then be formed in the place of one. It is not my intention to inquire into the principles upon which these new Unions would probably be established, but merely to show what the causes are which may effect the dismemberment of the existing confederation.
With this object I shall be obliged to retrace some of the steps which I have already taken, and to revert to topics which I have before discussed. I am aware that the reader may accuse me of repetition, but the importance of the matter which still remains to be treated is my excuse; I had rather say too much, than say too little to be thoroughly understood, and I prefer injuring the author to slighting the subject.
The legislators who formed the constitution of 1789 endeavored to confer a distinct and preponderating authority upon the federal power. But they were confined by the conditions of the task which they had undertaken to perform. They were not appointed to constitute the government of a single people, but to regulate the association of several states; and, whatever their inclinations might be, they could not but divide the exercise of sovereignty in the end.
In order to understand the consequences of this division, it is necessary to make a short distinction between the affairs of government. There are some objects which are national by their very nature, that is to say, which affect the nation as a body, and can only be intrusted to the man or the assembly of men who most completely represent the entire nation. Among these may be reckoned war and diplomacy. There are other objects which are provincial by their very nature, that is to say, which only affect certain localities, and which can only be properly treated in that locality. Such, for instance, is the budget of municipality. Lastly, there are certain objects of a mixed nature, which are national inasmuch as they affect all the citizens who compose the nation, and which are provincial inasmuch as it is not necessary that the nation itself should provide for them all. Such are the rights which regulate the civil and political condition of the citizens. No society can exist without civil and political rights. These rights therefore interest all the citizens alike; but it is not always necessary to the existence and the prosperity of the nation that these rights should be uniform, nor consequently, that they should be regulated by the central authority.