When the framers of America’s constitution came together on a chilly November afternoon, likely very few expected the Articles of Confederation to be ratified quickly. In fact, it would be over two years before this early attempt at a governing framework would be codified. This wasn’t exactly a problem with the articles, but it was certainly a manifestation of another problem. The early attempts at federal governance required total agreement from all states. A paralyzed and powerless central government was a problem the framers and federalists both sought to resolve. Indeed, very little of the United States government requires unanimity to operate today, and it’d be easy to package the federalist movement as a rebuttal to the Articles of Confederation; but reality speaks to a much deeper philosophical debate. The Federalist Papers weren’t just about a strong central government, they advocated for the rule of law, a guardian state that ran afoul of America’s identity and confronted the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Two thousand years before American colonists declared their independence, Plato wrestled with the ideas of moral autonomy and the paternal state. He had only recently watched his mentor Socrates put to death at the hands of democratic lynch men, and he now questioned the merits of mob rule. Undoubtedly the events surrounding Socrates’ execution greatly influenced his mistrust of the general citizenry, and his belief in absolute obedience to the law. In Crito, Plato goes so far as to declare that the citizen is indebted to the state. “[S]ince you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by [the state] can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave” (Crawford, 2007 p. 30), he says. So sacred was the law, and by extension, the state, that Plato declared them our paternal guardians. In his mind, the public was not to be trusted. It was after all a panel of citizens who had convicted Socrates to die. The law, by contrast, was emotionally agnostic and in theory, state guardians could be taught to protect it. Plato had no way of knowing that his principles of guardianship would persist for millennia to come, and one day work their way into the founding documents of the world’s greatest empire.
Centuries later, the Federalist papers sought to address certain deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. Among them, entangled federal and state powers and a weak central government. This implied that a strong central government was needed but that boundaries needed to be set. At first pass these objectives may seem at odds with one another. However, as historian Gary Wills summarizes it,
Neither [Hamilton nor Madison] wanted to see the states absorbed into a national government, but neither thought it was likely. It seemed [unlikely] that a central authority could or would want to descend to enforcement of local laws. (Wills, 1982 p. xv)
Separation of powers was essential to the Federalist system and both Hamilton and Madison recognized that the federal government couldn’t do everything. Nevertheless, Americans were wary of the formation of a strong central government. Not only would this have seemed like a return to British rule, but the very presence of a central government implied authority and the rule of law. More importantly, it required that the citizen cede a little of their personal autonomy to the state. These demands were not entirely unwarranted, however. North America was, after all, far from settled. There were still active Indian, French, Spanish, and English interests in the region, and domestic instability in the recently failed Shay’s rebellion (Krutz, 2021). Certainly, a strong central government could play a useful role in international and domestic affairs yet, empowering a central government carried a scent of Plato’s paternal guardian and such sentiments were decidedly not American. It’s not clear how many common Americans would have actively connected resistance of central governance to Plato’s guardian state, but these aspects certainly would have played with America’s founders. After all, “Madison did not believe in the equality of the branches of government, but in legislative supremacy” (Wills, 1982 p. xxii). In other words, the rule of law. Despite reservations that a central government could metastasize into tyranny, the debate pressed on. A central government was necessary, the federalists argued, but to what degree.
Ultimately a strong separation of federal and state powers such as that protected by the tenth amendment, carried the day. The federalist papers served their purpose, and the constitution was ratified. However, for those who were wary of Madison’s view, their fears would have been codified with the formation of the Supreme Court. It was, in many respects, a final nod to Plato’s guardian state. The court was assigned to protect the Constitution and ruled by a panel of judges who could not be removed. States retained much of their autonomy but guardianship, it seemed, would forever have a role in American government.
It’s easy to view the federalist papers as a logical rebuttal to the Articles of Confederation; and, in many respects, this is a fair assessment. The notion of a strong central government, after all, is academic in hindsight. Yet for the time, the ideas of central governance would have seemed overbearing and paternalistic. Indeed, the debate over how much federal government is necessary continues to this day. The persistence of this dialogue speaks to more than the structure of government; it speaks to a debate between personal autonomy and the guardian state. A debate that reaches back to the time of Plato.
References
Crawford, T. (Ed). (2007). Six great dialogues. Dover Publications, Inc.
Krutz, G. (2021). American government (3rd ed.). Rice University.
https://openstax.org/details/books/american-government-3e
Wills, G. (1982). The federalist papers. Bantam Classic.