Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow SPIRIT OF GOVERNMENTS. 1 - The Writings, vol. 6 (1790-1802)

Return to Title Page for The Writings, vol. 6 (1790-1802)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

SPIRIT OF GOVERNMENTS. 1 - James Madison, The Writings, vol. 6 (1790-1802) [1906]

Edition used:

The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 6.

Part of: The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


SPIRIT OF GOVERNMENTS.1

No Government is perhaps reducible to a sole principle of operation. Where the theory approaches nearest to this character, different and often heterogeneous principles mingle their influence in the administration. It is useful, nevertheless, to analyse the several kinds of government, and to characterize them by the spirit which predominates in each.

Montesquieu has resolved the great operative principles of government into fear, honor, and virtue, applying the first to pure despotisms, the second to regular monarchies, and the third to republics. The portion of truth blended with the ingenuity of this system sufficiently justifies the admiration bestowed on its author. Its accuracy however can never be defended against the criticisms which it has encountered. Montesquieu was in politics not a Newton or a Locke, who established immortal systems, the one in matter, the other in mind. He was in his peculiar science what Bacon was in universal science. He lifted the veil from the venerable errors which enslaved opinion, and pointed the way to those luminous truths of which he had but a glimpse himself.

May not governments be properly divided, according to their predominant spirit and principles into three species of which the following are examples?

First. A government operating by a permanent military force, which at once maintains the government, and is maintained by it; which is at once the cause of burdens on the people, and of submission in the people to their burdens. Such have been the governments under which human nature has groaned through every age. Such are the governments which still oppress it in almost every country of Europe, the quarter of the globe which calls itself the pattern of civilization, and the pride of humanity.

Secondly. A government operating by corrupt influence; substituting the motive of private interest in place of public duty; converting its pecuniary dispensations into bounties to favorites, or bribes to opponents; accommodating its measures to the avidity of a part of the nation instead of the benefit of the whole; in a word, enlisting an army of interested partizans, whose tongues, whose pens, whose intrigues, and whose active combinations, by supplying the terror of the sword, may support a real domination of the few, under an apparent liberty of the many. Such a government, wherever to be found, is an impostor. It is happy for the new world that it is not on the west side of the Atlantic. It will be both happy and honorable for the United States, if they never descend to mimic the costly pageantry of this form, nor betray themselves into the venal spirit of its administration.

Thirdly. A government deriving its energy from the will of the society, and operating by the reason of its measures, on the understanding and interest of the society. Such is the government for which philosophy has been searching, and humanity been fighting, from the most remote ages. Such are republican governments which it is the glory of America to have invented, and her unrivalled happiness to possess. May her glory be compleated by every improvement on the theory which experience may teach; and her happiness be perpetuated by a system of administration corresponding with the purity of the theory.1

[1 ]From The National Gazette, February 20, 1792.

[1 ]February 6, 1792, in the debate on the bill to encourage the cod fisheries Madison repeated his constitutional views substantially as in his speech of February 8, 1791.

TO EDMUND PENDLETON.

Philada Feby 21, 1792.

Dear Sir

Your favor of the 8th did not come to hand till this afternoon. I thank you for the very just & interesting observations contained in it. I have not yet met with an opportunity of forwarding the Report on Manufactures; nor has that subject been yet regularly taken up. The constitutional doctrine however advanced in the Report, has been anticipated on another occasion, by its zealous friends; and I was drawn into a few hasty animadversions the substance of which you will find in one of the inclosed papers. It gives me great pleasure to find my exposition of the Constitution so well supported by yours.

The Bill concerning the election of a President & Vice President and the eventual successor to both, which has long been depending, has finally got through the two Houses. It was made a question whether the number of electors ought to correspond with the new apportionment or the existing House of Reps. The text of the Constitution was not decisive, and the Northern interest was strongly in favor of the latter interpretation. The intrinsic rectitude however of the former turned the decision in both houses in favor of the Southern. On another point the Bill certainly errs. It provides that in case of a double vacancy, the Executive powers shall devolve on the Prest pro tempore of the Senate & he failing, on the Speaker of the House of Reps.2 The objections to this arrangement are various, 1. it may be questioned whether these are officers in the constitutional sense. 2. if officers whether both could be introduced. 3. as they are created by the Constitution, they would probably have been there designated if contemplated for such a service, instead of being left to the Legislative selection. 4. Either they will retain their Legislative stations, and then incompatible functions will be blended; or the incompatibility will supersede those stations, & then those being the substratum of the adventitious functions, these must fail also. The Constitution says, Congs. may declare what officers &c. which seems to make it not an appointment or a translation; but an annexation of one office or trust to another office. The House of Reps proposed to substitute the Secretary of State, but the Senate disagreed, & there being much delicacy in the matter it was not pressed by the former.

Another Representation Bill has gone to the Senate modelled on the double idea mentioned in my last. 1 for 30,000 is the ratio fixed both for the late & the proposed Census. The fate of the Bill in the Senate is problematical. The Bill immediately before the H. of Reps is a Militia Bill.

I have nothing to add to the contents of the Newspapers on other subjects foreign or domestic.

With the highest esteem & sincere affn

I remain Dear Sir Yrs



—Mad. MSS.

[1 ]February 6, 1792, in the debate on the bill to encourage the cod fisheries Madison repeated his constitutional views substantially as in his speech of February 8, 1791.

TO EDMUND PENDLETON.

Philada Feby 21, 1792.

Dear Sir

Your favor of the 8th did not come to hand till this afternoon. I thank you for the very just & interesting observations contained in it. I have not yet met with an opportunity of forwarding the Report on Manufactures; nor has that subject been yet regularly taken up. The constitutional doctrine however advanced in the Report, has been anticipated on another occasion, by its zealous friends; and I was drawn into a few hasty animadversions the substance of which you will find in one of the inclosed papers. It gives me great pleasure to find my exposition of the Constitution so well supported by yours.

The Bill concerning the election of a President & Vice President and the eventual successor to both, which has long been depending, has finally got through the two Houses. It was made a question whether the number of electors ought to correspond with the new apportionment or the existing House of Reps. The text of the Constitution was not decisive, and the Northern interest was strongly in favor of the latter interpretation. The intrinsic rectitude however of the former turned the decision in both houses in favor of the Southern. On another point the Bill certainly errs. It provides that in case of a double vacancy, the Executive powers shall devolve on the Prest pro tempore of the Senate & he failing, on the Speaker of the House of Reps.2 The objections to this arrangement are various, 1. it may be questioned whether these are officers in the constitutional sense. 2. if officers whether both could be introduced. 3. as they are created by the Constitution, they would probably have been there designated if contemplated for such a service, instead of being left to the Legislative selection. 4. Either they will retain their Legislative stations, and then incompatible functions will be blended; or the incompatibility will supersede those stations, & then those being the substratum of the adventitious functions, these must fail also. The Constitution says, Congs. may declare what officers &c. which seems to make it not an appointment or a translation; but an annexation of one office or trust to another office. The House of Reps proposed to substitute the Secretary of State, but the Senate disagreed, & there being much delicacy in the matter it was not pressed by the former.

Another Representation Bill has gone to the Senate modelled on the double idea mentioned in my last. 1 for 30,000 is the ratio fixed both for the late & the proposed Census. The fate of the Bill in the Senate is problematical. The Bill immediately before the H. of Reps is a Militia Bill.

I have nothing to add to the contents of the Newspapers on other subjects foreign or domestic.

With the highest esteem & sincere affn

I remain Dear Sir Yrs



—Mad. MSS.

[2 ]The succession was deflected from the Secretary of State because Jefferson then held the office.