[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 89 (Friday, June 28, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6302-S6306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONNECTING THE DOTS ON IRAQ
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the last several weeks, a number of
revelations have surfaced about how our intelligence agencies failed to
analyze and connect the pieces of information that they obtained.
According to these news accounts, while the September 11 attacks were a
shock to the American people, they may not have been a total surprise
to the intelligence arms of our Government.
While there is no smoking gun to indicate that the FBI, the CIA, or
anyone else or any other agency knew the totality of the September 11
plot before it was carried out, it now seems fairly clear that there
were known pieces of information, which, if thoroughly and properly
analyzed, could have put our Government on a higher state of alert for
a major terrorist attack upon the United States.
President Bush himself has acknowledged that our intelligence
agencies were not connecting the dots that would have prepared our
homeland for a devastating act of terrorism. In partial response, the
President has proposed the creation of a Department of Homeland
Security with a new bureau that is intended to sort through the
intelligence reports and hopefully connect the dots that are sometimes
overlooked or unappreciated by the FBI and/or CIA. The proposal has
some merit. However, I am troubled with the manner in which this and
other proposals are being crafted by the administration. Shrouded often
in ambiguity and cloaked often in deep secrecy, this administration
continues suddenly to sometimes unexpectedly drop its decisions upon
the public and Congress, and then expect obedient approval without
question, without debate, and without opposition.
The Senate is not like that. We scrutinize, we debate, we ask
questions.
For months, the President has been sending signals that U.S. efforts
to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq will involve direct military
action. In his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, the
President listed Iraq as a member of an ``axis of evil'' that seeks to
attack the United States with acts of terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction. The President punctuated his bold words with a warning
that he ``will not wait on events, while dangers gather,'' and that
``the United States of America will not permit the world's most
dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive
weapons.''
That is saber rattling. This saber rattling prompted many questions
for the American public, for Members of Congress, and for our allies.
The question being: Will we invade Iraq? When will it happen? Will the
United States go it alone? These are some of the questions.
On February 12, 2002, during a Budget Committee hearing, I questioned
the Secretary of State about the administration's designs on Iraq.
Unfortunately, the answers I got were not sufficiently clear to put to
rest my questions. Secretary of State Powell stated that the President
had ``made no decisions about war.''
Now, Mr. President, when I was in a two-room school in Algonquin, WV,
in 1923, I could read through that answer. That should not require the
mind of a genius to interpret.
Secretary Powell stated that the President had ``made no decisions
about war.'' So my question remained unanswered.
The Secretary, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom
I have been associated for many years in several difficult decisions
that have arisen over those years, the Secretary of State also stated
that he--meaning the President--``has no plan on his desk right now to
begin a war with any nation.''
I go back to that two-room schoolhouse in Algonquin in southern West
Virginia. I can figure that out. That is not answering the question.
Everybody knew it. The Secretary of State knew it. He did not intend to
answer that question. While I have a great deal of respect for
Secretary Powell, his answers provided more in the way of
qualifications and confusion than in the pursuance of clarity.
Earlier this month, President Bush added another dimension to our
national security policy. On June 1, 2002, he addressed the cadets at
West Point on the progress of the war on terrorism. In his remarks, the
President argued that deterrence and containment by themselves are not
enough to fight terrorism. He said, ``In the world we have entered, the
only path to safety is the path of action.'' And he urged Americans
``to be ready for preemptive action when necessary.''
In order to be ready for such action, the President said that the
U.S. military ``must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any
dark corner of the world.''
According to a Washington Post article on June 10, the National
Security Council is drafting a new defense doctrine to emphasize the
use of preemptive attacks against terrorists and rogue nations.
According to this article, the Department of Defense is also now
studying how to launch ``no warning'' raids using a ``Joint Stealth
Task
[[Page S6303]]
Force'' that includes aircraft, ground troops, and submarines.
Mr. President, these ``no warning'' raids will be a devastating
application of military force from the air, the ground, and the sea.
On Sunday, June 16, the Washington Post followed up on its reports
about this new national security strategy with an article entitled,
``President Broadens Anti-Hussein Order.'' According to this article:
President Bush earlier this year signed an intelligence
order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert
program to topple Saddam Hussein, including authority to use
lethal force to capture the Iraqi president, according to
informed sources.
The Post article continued:
One source said that the CIA covert action should be viewed
largely as preparatory to a military strike.
It then discussed the difficulties involved in carrying out an attack
on Iraq, including the large number of U.S. forces that would be
required, the size of the Iraqi military, and the contentious
relationships between Iraqi opposition groups and the United States.
So what we have is a lot of dots--a dot here, a dot there--about what
the foreign policy of the United States is; a dot here, a dot there
about what military action our Government might pursue.
I am constrained to ask, Is this a way to run a constitutional
government? Is this a way to lead in a Republic? I hear so many of our
Senators talk about this ``democracy.'' This is not a democracy.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the conclusion of my
remarks certain excerpts from SA No. 10 and SA No. 14 of the essays by
Jay and Madison and Hamilton, the Federalist essays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BYRD. Senators for themselves can, once again, if they ever have
read, read what Madison says about a democracy and what he says about a
republic. In those two essays, Senators will find the distinction
between a democracy and a republic. I believe this should be required
reading on the part of all Senators and all other public officials,
essay No. 10 and essay No. 14 by Madison. If Senators want to know the
difference between a democracy and a republic, turn to those two
essays. Madison is quite clear in the difference.
Saddam Hussein has now had 11 years since the end of the gulf war to
rebuild his war machine. New military action against Iraq would be
costly in terms of national treasure and blood. It is exactly because
of these kinds of considerations that the Constitution vests in
Congress the authority to declare war, and the responsibility to
finance military action.
We have heard Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle
express their support for military operations against Iraq. The case
has yet to be argued, at least in any serious detail, or in open debate
before the people. Bold talk of chasing down evildoers, stirring
patriotic words, expressions of support for our men and women in
uniform, these all have an important place in our national life, but
the American people deserve to hear why we need to be an aggressor, why
we need to risk the lives of their sons and daughters, why we need to
take preemptive action against Iraq.
Now, perhaps we should do so. I am not saying we should not, but I am
saying that Congress needs to know about this, and the American people
need to have more than just patriotic expressions with visual backup,
assemblies and/or words.
If it is the President's intent to oust Saddam Hussein, he would be
well advised to obtain the support of the American people, and that
would involve seeking congressional authorization to use military
force.
I very well understand there are some military actions that we must
take on virtually a moment's notice in the interest of protecting this
Nation and its people, and the Commander in Chief has that inherent
authority under the Constitution. But there comes a time when the
Commander in Chief still needs to level with the American people and
Congress.
We saw what happened in the case of the war in Vietnam when the
support of the people back home declined, when the support of the
American people began to go away from pursuing the Vietnam war. That
support of the American people is necessary, and that support is
expressed in many cases by their elected Representatives in both Houses
of Congress. Yet this administration persists in an unwise and
dangerous effort to keep the public largely in the dark.
I have to repeat to the administration time and time again, the
legislative branch is not a subordinate body. It is not a subordinate
department. It is not subordinate to the executive branch. It is an
equal branch of the Government. So I think the administration, in
embracing secrecy so much and so deliberately, is acting unwisely. It
makes no sense. It is dangerous.
We have all seen the folly of military missions launched and
maintained without sufficient support of the people. Time and again
history has demonstrated that in a democratic republic such as the
United States, the sustained support of the people is essential for the
success of any long-term military mission.
I recall all too well the nightmare of Vietnam. I remember all too
well how Congress, without sufficient information and debate, approved
military action in that conflict. I recall all too well the antiwar
protests, the demonstrations, the campus riots, the tragic deaths at
Kent State, as well as the resignation of a President and a Vice
President. I remember all too well the gruesome daily body counts in
Vietnam.
The United States was a deeply divided country, and I would say we
better read the Constitution more than we read the polls, instead of
vice versa--reading the polls first and last and the Constitution
somewhere in between.
I recall all too well the words of Senator Ernest Gruening of Alaska,
who was sworn in in the same class which I was sworn, 1958. He was one
of the two Senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution
that gave the President the authority to take military action in
Vietnam. Senator Gruening said this:
By long and established practice, the Executive conducts
the Nation's foreign policy. But the Constitution and
particularly, by constitutional mandate, the Senate has the
right and the duty in these premises to advise and consent.
Especially is this true when it is specifically called upon
by the Executive . . . for its participation in momentous
decisions of foreign policy.
I recall all too well the words of the other Senator who voted
against the Tonkin Gulf resolution. In urging Congress to investigate
and hold hearings before endorsing the President's plan, Senator Wayne
Morse of Oregon expressed his concern that the Pentagon and the
executive branch were perpetrating a ``snow job'' upon Congress and the
American people. If the Senate approved the Tonkin Gulf resolution,
Senator Morse warned that ``Senators who vote for it will live to
regret it.'' I was one of those who voted for it, and thanks to the
good Lord, I am still living. I am the last of that class of 1958. I
regret that vote on the Tonkin Gulf resolution. I wish I had had the
foresight to vote against it, as did Senators Morse and Gruening.
I am determined to do everything I can to prevent this country from
becoming involved in another Vietnam nightmare. This determination
begins with Congress being fully and sufficiently informed on the
undertakings of our Government, especially if it involves a commitment
to military action.
We have to depend upon the leadership of the Senate and both sides of
the aisle to insist that the Senate be informed. We also have to depend
on the leadership of the other body on both sides of the aisle to
insist on these things. We represent the American people. They send us
here. No President sends me here. No President can send me home. No
President sends the distinguished Senator from Nebraska here. No
President can send him home. He comes here by virtue of the people of
his State. They vote to send him, and he is here to represent them. He
is not here to represent a President.
I realize, as our Founding Fathers realized, that in a government of
separated powers, one branch of government has to be able to act
swiftly and unilaterally at times. Of course, that is the executive
branch. In this age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, these
abilities are needed more than ever. We all know that.
But I also realize, as did our Founding Fathers, the need for another
[[Page S6304]]
branch, this branch, the legislative branch, to be able to put the
brakes on the executive branch. Those brakes include investigation,
hearings, debate, votes, and the power of the purse. That is the
greatest raw power, may I say to the pages on both sides of the aisle;
the power of the purse is the greatest raw power in this Government--
the greatest. Cicero said, ``There is no fortress so strong that money
cannot take it.'' Remember that. There is a new book out on Cicero; I
must get it. I have heard about it. Remember, I say to these bright
young pages--some of them will be Senators one day--Cicero said,
``There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it.'' He was
right.
So, I have heard a lot of talk about the need for this country to
speak with one voice on matters of war and peace. Debate on such
important issues, say these people, might reveal differences in views
on how we ought to act. Our opponents would revel in our discord and
the President would lose credibility as he went toe to toe with our
enemies. It is as though some think that Congress is an impediment to
the interests of this country.
I am sure the executive branch believes quite strongly from time to
time that Congress is an impediment. But we still have the
Constitution. Thank God for the Constitution. I hold it in my hand, the
Constitution of the United States. And also in this little booklet is
the Declaration of Independence. I will refer to that a little later.
Here is that Constitution. Thank God for the Constitution. The
legislative branch can always turn to this Constitution. That anchor
holds. There is an old hymn, ``The Anchor Holds.'' Well, this is the
anchor, the Constitution which I hold in my hand. This is the anchor.
It holds.
I don't think debate is a weakness. Debate is our strength. Debate
shows that we are a nation of laws, not of men. It shows that no man,
no king--we do not have a king in this country. We have some people who
are apparently monarchists. I think we have some in this Chamber who
are sometimes monarchists when it comes to voting. They want to support
the executive branch. The executive branch will take care of itself.
Remember that, may I say to the young pages.
There are three branches of Government: The judicial branch--it will
always uphold the prerogatives of the judicial branch, the executive
branch--it will always uphold the prerogatives of the executive branch,
and grab for more; but it is here in the legislative branch that
sometimes half, or a large portion, of the membership does not speak
for the prerogatives of the legislative branch under this Constitution;
they speak for the prerogatives of the executive branch.
``We must support the Commander in Chief,'' they say. ``We must
support the Commander in Chief.'' But, fellow Senators, this Commander
in Chief is only here for 4 years. I have served with 11 Commanders in
Chief. We have Commanders in Chief, but we do not have to support the
Commander in Chief. I don't care if he is a Democrat. I don't have to
support the Commander in Chief. And I sometimes don't, even if he is a
Democrat.
Well, debate shows that we are a nation of laws and that no man--
neither king nor Commander in Chief--has the right to send us to war by
virtue of his decision alone.
This Republic--not this democracy; forget it. Read Madison's essays,
No. 10 and No. 14--this Republic. There it is, we pledge allegiance to
the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic--not ``the
democracy.'' The city-states in the time of Athens could have
democracies. My little town of Sophia, with about 1,180 persons, could
be a democracy. It is small enough. All the people could come together
and they could speak for all the people, but not in this great country
of 280 million people. This is a republic. We ought to get in the habit
of speaking of it as a republic.
We are a model to the world in this respect. By debating and voting
on issues of war and peace, Congress is able to express the will of the
American people and galvanize support for what could be a costly
conflict. Debate and well-meaning disagreement on important issues do
not weaken the resolve of the American people. It is secret motives--
here is where problems begin--secret motives, clandestine plotting, and
lack of confidence in the public that are the swift solvent of our
national morale.
If it is the path that this Nation is to take, President Bush ought
to present his case to Congress before we must use military force to
overthrow Saddam Hussein. That is why the Congress must ask important
questions. At least there are some leaders in both Houses, in both
parties, who need to be taken into these secrets.
That is why the Congress must ask important questions, including if
we are successful in getting rid of the authoritarian who is now in
power in Iraq, who will take his place? Have we covertly hand picked a
leader for the future of Iraq? If so, who is he? Once such a military
operation is undertaken, how will we know when the mission is
accomplished?
Let there be no doubt, from what I now know and understand, I would
support a change in regimes in Iraq. I suppose every Member of this
body would probably do that. There is no doubt in my mind about the
serious and continuing danger that Iraq poses to the stability of the
Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein has sought to build weapons of mass
destruction and long-range missiles. His military regularly attempts to
shoot down our fighter planes that patrol the No Fly Zones over Iraq.
He has worked to heighten the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians. He has promoted the starvation of Iraqi children so that
he and his cabal can live in palaces. Saddam Hussein is a scourge on
the people of Iraq and a menace to peace. We know that. I know these
things. I wasn't exactly born yesterday. But it is the duty of Congress
to ask questions. Members of Congress need not be intimidated by polls.
We are expected to ask questions.
It is the duty of Congress to ask questions so that we, the people's
branch of government, and as a result, the American people, will know
what we may be getting ourselves into. It may be that the President
already has answers to these questions about Iraq, and that we might
awake one morning to see those answers printed in the morning
newspaper. As we learned all too well in Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia,
it is dangerous to present Congress and the American people with a fait
accompli--that is a dangerous thing to do, no matter what the polls
say. Those polls can drop suddenly--present Congress and the American
people with a fait accompli of important matters on foreign affairs.
When the Administration is asking the American people to send their
sons and daughters into harm's way, knowing that some will never
return, it is essential that Congress know more, not less, about the
Administration's planned course of action. Congress must not be left to
connect dots!
All that Congress has been promised so far is that the President
would consult with Congress about military action against Iraq. This
promise falls well short of the mark, particularly because of what the
Administration offers in the way of consultation. Like other members of
the Senate, I was taken by surprise by the President's sudden
announcement of his plan to create a massive new Department of Homeland
Security. I favored such, but it was all hatched in the bowels of the
White House. And according to the press, there were, I think, four
persons who provided the genius behind the creation. In an unbelievable
twist of logic, the Administration maintains that it actually consulted
with Congress on the proposal. The administration knows better than
that. The President's chief of staff was quoted in The Washington Post
on June 9, 2002, as saying, ``We consulted with agencies and with
Congress, but they might not have known that we were consulting.'' How
do you like that? I have been in Congress 50 years now. I have never
seen anything like that, where the administration says we have
consulted with Congress but they might not have known we were
consulting.
This does not even deserve to qualify for George Orwell's definition
of double speak. Such a claim is plain, unmitigated garbage.
In the aftermath of the carnage and turmoil of the Vietnam war,
Congress approved the War Powers Resolution, that provided procedures
for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S.
Armed Forces into
[[Page S6305]]
hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) required the President to report to
Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent
hostilities. Section 3 requires that the ``President in every possible
instance shall; consult with Congress before introducing'' U.S. Armed
Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities.
In face of this Congressional resolution, this administration refuses
to consult with anyone outside its own inner circle--well, let its own
inner circle provide the money when the time comes--anyone outside its
own inner circle about what appears to be its plan for imminent
hostilities. This Administration convenes meetings of its trusted few
in little underground rooms, while sending decoy envoys to meet with
Congress and members of the press, and the public.
I have not seen such Executive arrogance and secrecy since the Nixon
Administration, and we all know what happened to that group.
I remember too well the Executive arrogance and extreme secrecy that
lead to the Iran-Contra scandal. Selling weapons to a terrorist nation
in exchange for hostages, and using that money to finance an illegal
war in Central America. What a great plan that was! I guess I can
understand why the Reagan Administration did not want to tell Congress
about that foreign policy adventure.
I have no doubt that as I speak, there are some within this
Administration who are preparing to carry out some sort of attack
against Iraq. Well, that's all right. We have to make plans before we
do things. I am not sure who they are, but I am connecting the dots,
and I am concerned about the picture that is developing.
If the President needs to take decisive military action to prevent
the imminent loss of American lives, he will receive broad support. But
if this country is moving methodically and deliberately toward some
kind of showdown with Iraq, Congress is entitled to good-faith
consultations from the executive branch. We must consider and debate
whether we should use military force against Saddam Hussein. And,
barring the most exceptional of circumstances, Congress must vote to
authorize the President to use military force against Iraq prior to the
outbreak of hostilities if, after appropriate debate and consideration,
Congress comes to that conclusion.
As Senator Gruening pointed out, it is the role of the Senate to
advise and consent in foreign policy. And those words did not originate
with Senator Gruening. Read the Constitution.
As the War Powers Resolution points out, it is the role of Congress
to be active participants in foreign affairs, and certainly such
adventures as making war.
So, as we proceed, let us connect the dots.
As the Constitution demands, it is the role of Congress to declare
war. Yes, we have a Commander in Chief. But what Army and what Navy
does he have to command if Congress does not provide the money?
When the President is ready to present his case to Congress, I am
ready to listen. But I think we all must be tired of trying to connect
dots in the dark.
Exhibit 1
The Federalist No. 10
James Madison
* * * * *
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a
pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a
small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the
Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs
of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost
every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a
communication and concert results from the form of Government
itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to
sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence
it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible
with personal security, or the rights of property; and have
in general been as short in their lives, as they have been
violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have
patronized this species of Government, have erroneously
supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in
their political rights, they would, at the same time, be
perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions,
their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the
scheme of representation takes place, opens a different
prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let
us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy,
and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the
efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a Democracy and
a Republic are, first, the delegation of the Government, in
the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the
rest: secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater
sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand to
refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through
the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may
best discern the true interest of their country, and whose
patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to
sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under
such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice
pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more
consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the
people themselves convened for the purpose. On the other
hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of
local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by
corruption or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and
then betray the interests of the people. The question
resulting is, whether small or extensive Republics are most
favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public
weal: and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two
obvious considerations.
In the first place it is to be remarked that however small
the Republic may be, the Representatives must be raised to a
certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a
few; and that however large it may be, they must be limited
to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion
of a multitude. Hence the number of Representatives in the
two cases, not being in proportion to that of the
Constituents, and being proportionally greatest in the small
Republic, it follows, that if the proportion of fit
characters, be not less, in the large than in the small
Republic, the former will present a greater option, and
consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each Representative will be chosen by
a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small
Republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates
to practise with success the vicious arts, by which elections
are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being
more free, will be more likely to centre on men who possess
the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and
established characters.
It must be confessed, that in this, as in most other cases,
there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will
be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of
electors, you render the representative too little acquainted
with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as
by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to
these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and
national objects. The Federal Constitution forms a happy
combination in this respect; the great and aggregate
interests being referred to the national, the local and
particular, to the state legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of
citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within
the compass of Republican than of Democratic Government; and
it is this circumstance principally which renders factious
combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the
latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be
the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer
the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will
a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the
number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller
the compass within which they are placed, the more easily
will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.
Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of
parties and interests; you make it less probable that a
majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the
rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists,
it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover
their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.
Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where
there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes,
communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to
the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a
Republic has over a Democracy, in controlling the effects of
faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small Republic--is
enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.
* * * * *
The Federalist No. 14
James Madison
* * * * *
The error which limits Republican Government to a narrow
district, has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers.
[See Essays 9 and 10.] I remark here only, that it seems to
owe its rise and prevalence, chiefly to the confounding of a
republic with a democracy: And applying to the former
reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true
distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a
former occasions. [See
[[Page S6306]]
Essay 10.] It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and
exercise the government in person; in a republic they
assemble and administer it by their representatives and
agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small
spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.
To this accidental source of the error may be added the
artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had
a great share in forming the modern standard of political
opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute, or limited
monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages or
palliate the evils of those forms; by placing in comparison
with them, the vices and defects of the republican, and by
citing as specimens of the latter, the turbulent democracies
of ancient Greece, and modern Italy. Under the confusion of
names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic,
observations applicable to a democracy only, and among
others, the observation that it can never be established but
among a small number of people, living within a small compass
of territory.
Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived as most of
the governments of antiquity were of the democratic species;
and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great
principle of representation, no example is seen of a
government wholly popular, and founded at the same time
wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of
discovering this great mechanical power in government, by the
simple agency of which, the will of the largest political
body may be concentred, and its force directed to any object,
which the public good requires; America can claim the merit
of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive
republics. It is only to be lamented, that any of her
citizens should wish to deprive her of the additional merit
of displaying its full efficacy on the establishment of the
comprehensive system now under her consideration.
As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from
the central point, which will just permit the most remote
citizens to assemble as often as their public functions
demand; and will include no greater number than can join in
those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that
distance from the center, which will barely allow the
representatives of the people to meet as often as may be
necessary for the administration of public affairs.
* * * * *
____________________