****For C. Owens Only****

Federalism, Nationalism, and Democracy in America Author(s): Samuel H. Beer Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 9-21 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1953596 Accessed: 20-08-2017 14:16 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Federalism, Nationalism, and Democracy in America*

SAMUEL H. BEER Harvard University

Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1977

The growth of the public sector in recent years has been accompanied by both centralization and decentralization. More important than any such shifts of power or function between levels of government, however, has been the emergence of new arenas of mutual influence among levels of government. In this way recent developments in intergovernmental relations are adding a new dimension to the national system of representation. That the federal division of powers should serve a representative function is entirely in accord with the original design. A look at this design in the light of the theory of its founders helps one perceive this distinctive purpose. Then as now American federalism was primarily an instrument of national democracy. Current American experience with this aspect of intergovernmental relations, moreover, suggests questions for comparative study of the contemporary welfare state.

During the 1960s in the United States, as in most advanced countries, there was a large and sudden surge upward in the growth of the public sector, largely under the impetus of the central government. Supporters of this new phase of centralization sometimes see it as one more, and perhaps the final, stage in the transformation of the American polity into virtually a unitary system (Sundquist 1969:6-13; Reagan 1972:163). Critics, on the other hand, seek to revive federalism, frequent- ly proposing a reallocation of functions be- tween levels of government (Nathan 1975:111-15; Elazar 1973:284, 292). Some find evidence of such a revival in the decentrali- zation accomplished by recent less restrictive schemes of federal aid (Nathan 1977:131, 164-65).

I should like to present a third position. My thesis is that more important than any shifts of power or function between levels of govern- ment has been the emergence of new arenas of mutual influence among levels of government. Within the field of intergovernmental relations a new and powerful system of representation has arisen, as the federal government has made a vast new use of state and local governments and these governments in turn have asserted a new direct influence on the federal government. What is interesting about American federalism today is not its particular allocation of func- tions or powers between levels of government,

*I wish to dedicate this paper to the memory of Martin Diamond from whom over the years I have learned much about American federalism and especial- ly about the importance of theory to its original design.

but rather what it is adding to our national system of representation.

Moreover, I should say that these develop- ments, while new, are in harmony with the original design of the federal system. Federal- ism as the mutually exclusive allocation of powers between the general and the state governments-dual federalism, it may be called1 -belongs to the past. Dual federalism was indeed a feature of the original design and, broadly speaking, characterized our system of multilevel government until the New Deal. Federalism in this sense does not apply, and given the realities of our times, could not be made to apply, to that system today.

But dual federalism was only one and a secondary feature of the original design. The theory governing that design made its territorial allocation of powers an instrument of a far more important purpose. That purpose was so

1A mutually exclusive allocation of powers can be conceived as originating in at least two ways. The constituent power may endow the federal government with powers A and the state governments with powers not-A. Or it can endow the federal government with powers A and the state governments with powers 1B. Corwin coined the term "dual federalism" to refer to the second conception which for a hundred years after Marshall the Supreme Court frequently followed by holding that the Tenth Amendment was a separate grant of powers and therefore an independent limit on Congress. (Corwin, 1934:47-48; 1950:5, 15; 1974:369-72). The term has also come to be used more broadly to refer to the first conception, which would include the Marshallian view that the Constitu- tion granted certain powers to the federal government, leaving the residuum, whatever it may be, to the states (Elazar, 1962:13-21). In Marshall's day and for long after, that residuum was considerable (Grodzins, 1966:24-30). In this sense, one can say that dual federalism characterized our system until the New Deal.

9

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

10 The American Political Science Review Vol. 72

to divide and organize power as to avert the evils and realize the benefits of free govern- ment. Within this general scheme, the federal division of powers served a representative func- tion by creating a structure of mutual balance and influence between the two main levels of government. In this manner, dual federalism was a means to representational federalism (Eulau, 1973 and see footnote 5 below).

In the first part of this article I shall, therefore, be talking about the original federal design, in order, in the second part, to direct attention to the way that representational federalism has been reconstituted by recent developments in intergovernmental relations. Since these developments have parallels in other countries, I shall conclude with a few questions for comparative study suggested by American experience.

The Original Federal Design

The Democratic Purpose. To see the original federal design as the solution to a problem of representation links it directly and intimately to the great cause that led to the American Revolution.2 That cause was liberty. To the colonial dissidents liberty meant certain per- sonal rights, such as freedom of conscience, but above all political liberty, the right to govern- ment by "the consent of the governed." And

2In this historical section I have been much influenced by the democratic nationalism of George Bancroft. While an undergraduate I was explicitly warned off Bancroft and introduced instead to the views of Van Tyne, an elegant incrementalist with a strong bias toward the compact theory (1907; 1922:Ch. 1; 1929 :Ch. 15). It was therefore something of a revelation to discover some years later the powerful and illuminating perspectives of the earlier writer. The composition of his history stretched over more than half a century, the first volume being published in 1834 and the final revision of the whole work in 1888. For his main themes, see, for example, in that edition, Vol. 1, Ch. 11, "Prelates and Puritans" and Ch. 19, "The Place of Puritanism in History"; Vol. 3, Ch. 9, "The Day-Star of the American Union"; and Vol. 6, Book 3, Ch. 3, "The Connecticut Compro- mise."

Bancroft's emphasis on the role of ideas in the Revolution, although not necessarily his derivation of these ideas from the Reformation, is supported by

Louis Hartz' masterly study of the influence of Lockean Liberalism on American beginnings (Hartz, 1955 :Chs. 1 and 2). In general I follow Bernard Bailyn's views of the source of the ideology of the Revolution and of the importance of this ideology in defining the issues of the conflict (Bailyn, 1967: esp. Ch. 5). On the origins of American federalism, however, I depart from Bailyn, who follows McLaugh- lin (Bailyn, 1967 :209n) with whom I strongly disagree (See n. 4 below).

by "consent" they meant not some presumed agreement to a form of government delivered by social contract in the distant past, but rather a consent that closely and actively joined voter and representative (Bailyn, 1967:172-75). Am- biguities in this idea permitted various degrees of control by voters over representatives, rang- ing from strict delegation to a fiduciary rela- tionship subject to frequent accountability. Sometimes the two tendencies were mixed, as when the town meeting of Boston in May 1764 at the height of the Stamp Act crisis delegated to their representatives in the provincial as- sembly "the power of acting in their public concerns in general as your own prudence shall direct you, always reserving to themselves the constitutional right of expressing their mind and giving you such instruction upon particular matters as they at any time shall judge proper" (Pamphlets:471). One part of the charge leads toward legislative discretion, the other toward popular sovereignty. Either makes government crucially dependent on the will of the voters.

Whether in a more or a less radical form, government by consent as understood by the colonial dissidents was fundamentally and irre- concilably in conflict with the theory and prac- tice of British government in the eighteenth century.3 The Old Whig constitution had em- erged from a medieval past and, although the philosophical and sociological foundations of the polity had been transformed by modernity, John Adams was quite right to see in it powerful remnants of the canon and feudal laws. This polity was hierarchical and corpora- tist and its hierarchy and corporatism did not depend, and were not believed to depend, upon the will of the voters. From the premises of the system virtual representation and parliamentary sovereignty followed logically. The polity in- cluded a great variety of corporate groupings, functional and territorial, often of unequal value and authority. Representation in the House of Commons was adjusted to this order- ing. For the individual to be represented, it was not necessary that he actually have a vote for a member of Parliament, but only that persons belonging to his rank or order and residing in

3I have discussed the theory and practice of British politics in the eighteenth century, especially in rela- tion to representation, in British Politics in the Collectivist Age (1969). The contrast that I draw between what I call Old Whig politics and Liberal and Radical politics in chapters 1 and 2 also marks out the main lines of ideological conflict between the Ameri- can dissidents and the apologists in America and Britain for the policy and rhetoric of British Admini- strations from the Sugar Act to the Declaration of Independence.

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1978 Federalism, Nationalism and Democracy in America 11

his sort of community should have a vote. Indeed, according to these beliefs, if all the people had been enfranchised and grouped in constituencies that would give their votes equal weight, essential differentiations of value and authority would be destroyed. For the same reason, the sovereign authority could not be located in the people, but only in that complex body, the Parliament, which, including King, Lords and Commons, brought all elements of the polity into a common deliberation in their proper ordering. The American dissidents, seized with a different ideology, which de- scended from that failed democratic revolution of the English seventeenth century, the Com- monwealth (Lindsay, 1943: Ch. 5; DeGrazia, 1951:21-28, 53-61), were impelled into fun- damental conflict with this Old Whig regime and its rulers. The polemic in the decade or so before the Revolution rightly focused this conflict between hierarchy and democracy on the question of representation.

To give such emphasis to the democratic character of the American Revolution is to play down its national character. One could argue the opposite case, saying, for instance, as Schumpeter did (1947:216-17), that by the middle of the eighteenth century most Ameri- cans had come to regard the British rulers as foreigners who were interfering with American interests, but that, perhaps because the ide- ology of nationalism had not yet appeared, the Americans sought to legitimate with democratic principles what was really a national uprising. This hypothesis may gain some plausibility because of the primacy of nationalism over democracy in the creation of many new states in recent decades. It does not, however, fit the facts of the American case. Given the depth of the conflict one might well conclude that an ultimate decision for independence was inevita- ble. Some of the colonial leaders came to that conclusion rather sooner than others. But there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the dissidents as a whole when through a decade of bitter debate they steadfastly claimed that they sought only freedom within the British empire, not freedom from it. For months after Washing- ton took command of the Continental Army in 1775 he and his officers daily drank the king's health.

The federal question did not arise until independence had been chosen. Naturally. One could not seriously consider how or why to allocate powers between a central government and various provincial governments in an American polity until it had been decided to have an American polity. The prerevolutionary debate, therefore, although much concerned

with the specific powers that Parliament might exercise in comparison with those of the colonial assemblies, showed no preference for a federal arrangement.4 Indeed, the first major proposal put forward by a colonial spokesman embodied a unitary, not a federal solution to the problem of imperial government, when James Otis in 1764, echoing an idea favored by Franklin ten years earlier, proposed "an Ameri- can representation in Parliament" (Pamph- lets:445). In his scheme, which was said to have been "universally approved" of in the colonies (409), although insisting that the colonial legi- slatures be maintained (445-46), he conceded parliamentary sovereignty and granted that the provincial legislatures were unquestionably subordinate to that of Great Britain (449, 452).

In the following years, various plans were offered for a division of powers between the imperial and the colonial legislatures. These efforts to "draw a line" were based on such rationales as the distinction between internal and external taxation (Stephen Hopkins, 1765, in Pamphlets, 512; Benjamin Franklin, 1766:421, 424, 445-46) or between the power to regulate the trade of the colonies and the power to tax them (John Dickinson, 1767:146-47, 156-57). If one may call these schemes federal, one must, on the other hand, recognize that on the eve of independence they succumbed to a proposal which was once again

4, can clarify the thrust of this and the next paragraph by noting how radically my interpretation differs from the familiar and widely held views of Andrew C. McLaughlin who in this Review in 1918 argued "first, that the essential qualities of American federal organization were largely the product of the practices of the old British empire as it existed before 1764; second, that the discussions of the generation from the French and Indian war to the adoption of the federal Constitution, and, more particularly, the discussion in the 10 or 12 years before independence, were over the problem of imperial organization" (McLaughlin, 1918:215). Nor, a fortiori, can I accept the theses of his constitutional history that "the two main achievements" of the Revolution were "the establishment of limited government and the founding of the federal state"-his conception of federalism being dual federalism (McLaughlin, 1936:5). I find rather that the arguments of the dissidents emphasize not limited government, but self-government, and that accordingly the meaning they gave to federalism was primarily representational, not dual.

In contrast with McLaughlin's emphasis on law and historical experience, this interpretation stresses theo- ry and ideology. At the same time I would strongly insist that historical experience and the embodiments it had given to English liberty were crucially important in that they lent concrete meaning to the abstractions of the debate. On neither side were the contestants mere ideologues. The conflict of their ideals was sharper for having a specific, historically informed content.

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

12 The American Political Science Review Vol. 72

unitary insofar as it denied any and all authori- ty to Parliament over the colonies. This was the

idea-of what much later came to be known as "dominion status" (Smith, 1956:58)-that the colonies and Britain were "distinct states" within the empire connected with one another only by having the same king (James Wilson, 1774:745n; John Adams, 1774:37-38, 105, 170). This view of the juridical status of Parliament was carried over into the Declara- tion of Independence which, turning its full attention to justifying a break with the king, dismissed Parliament as never having exercised legitimate authority over the colonies. No one of the many and various schemes for imperial reorganization had solved the conflict for the simple reason that the conflict was not about the territorial allocation of powers, but about the democratic basis of power.

The National Question. When this failure had led to independence, the national question came suddenly and urgently to the fore. What was the source of the authority of the new government? Obviously, the consent of the people-that and nothing more. But was this consent given by one people or by several peoples, by the nation or by the states? The Declaration of Independence described itself in Jefferson's words as the act of "one people" and eleven years later the Constitution similarly declared that it was ordained and established by "We, the people." According to Abraham Lin- coln, the unity of the nation asserted in these documents dated back to the time of the Continental Congress-when the colonists chose to form the Union, which is, in his words, "older than any of the States, and, in fact . .. created the States" and "produced their inde- pendence and liberty" (1861:394).

This version of events provides the historical basis for the national theory of American federalism. According to that theory, a single sovereign power, the people of the United States, created both the federal and state governments, delegating to each a certain limit- ed authority. In this theory of the juridical basis of the American polity popular sovereign- ty appears as a single national will acting as the constituent power. The compact theory, on the other hand, takes a different view of the same events and arrives at a different view of the Constitution and of federalism. According to this view, the colonies became separate, inde- pendent polities when they cast loose from Britain and only thereafter entered into an agreement to have a general government for certain limited purposes. From this theory

justifications have been deduced for secession, interposition, or at least extensive "states' rights."

The national theory, I should say, is a superior interpretation of what actually hap- pened, an interpretation incidentally which has been given further powerful support by recent historical research (Morris, 1974:1068-88; Ra- kove, 1975:Chs. 2, 3 and 4). The important thing, however, for the present inquiry into the original design of American federalism, is that the men who conceived and elaborated that design worked from the premises of the na- tional theory (Morris: 1064, 1073). Their fed- eralism presupposes their nationalism. In their view the constituent power was one people, the nation. What they sought to produce in the constitution of the new polity was a scheme by which that nation would act not only as the constituent power, but also as the continuous controlling and directing influence in the poli- tical life of the new polity. In seeking to give such effect to this idea of national democracy, they were consistently carrying out the belief in government by consent that had rationalized and impelled the resistance to Great Britain in prerevolutionary days. The problem of repre- sentation which had preoccupied the energies of that long struggle continued to be central to the shaping of the federal structure.

The Framers' Theory. Theory had powerfully directed their labors of resistance and theory powerfully directed their labors of construc- tion. In the later as in the earlier phase, the orienting ideology consisted of those same liberal democratic ideas that had come down from the seventeenth century. In their work of construction, however, the Americans also made wide use of "the new science of politics" which had blossomed in the early eighteenth century (Ranney, 1976:141-42; Adair, 1957:347-48). This new study was by no means conceived as value-free, but was domi- nated by the new hope of the time, free government. Its main concern was how to protect liberty by dividing and balancing power within a polity. The premise of this concern and of its consequent technique was a certain distrust of human nature. Although many of these authors, as in the case of the Americans, had had a Protestant upbringing, I would not say that this distrust was Calvinist-it did not approach that black despair-nor even that it was distinctively Christian or biblical. It was more modern, more secular, a workable pes- simism which saw a love of power in all men and feared any monopoly of the instruments of

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1978 Federalism, Nationalism and Democracy in America 13

power, but which held that if control over these instruments were properly divided and bal- anced, power could be made to check power so that it would be used only for the common good. One technique was a separation of powers according to the "natural" functions of government or according to the ranks and orders of society. Another consisted in a division of powers between a general govern- ment and a number of provincial governments. It was, of course, this latter sort of balancing that the framers sought to achieve in their federal design.

That design was unique. At Philadelphia in 1787, it is generally recognized, the Americans invented federalism as it has come to be understood since that time (Diamond, 1961:21-23). The scheme had no precedent (Federalist 37:226). Its authors were not, as some have claimed (McLaughlin, 1918:238-40), attempting to restore an alloca- tion of powers between central and provincial governments like that the colonists had experi- enced in the days of "benign and salutary neglect" under the old empire before the Sugar Act. They were surely not trying to imitate the Dutch, Swiss or German regimes, a type of polity which they regarded as "the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility" (Federalist 9:52; Riley, 1968:401). Their new creation was theory-based. Yet even in drawing generously on the political science of their time, they did not follow their authorities slavishly. Indeed, their inventiveness consisted precisely in com- bining elements taken from two incompatible constructions of, respectively, Montesquieu and Hume.

Montesquieu's contribution came principally from his famous discussion of the confederate republic in Books VIII and IX of The Spirit of the Laws. There he was trying to reconcile the conflicting conditions conducive respectively to liberty and to security. In conformity with the conventional view, he held that "republican government" could flourish only in a small state where "the public good" is "more obvi- ous, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen." In an extensive repub- lic, on the other hand, although its defensive posture would be stronger, the public good would be "sacrificed to a thousand private views" and encroachments on liberty would be able to grow without arousing general re- sistance (120). Distance, size or-more proper- ly-scale would present the man of ambition with his opportunity and his temptation. Mon- tesquieu proposed to realize the respective advantages of smallness and largeness of scale without introducing their disadvantages by

means of a confederate republic. Formed by "a convention" among a number of small repub- lics, such a polity could amass defensive power without making itself vulnerable to the internal corruption of despotism, because the member states would retain the independent force to prevent the abuse of power by the general government. The territorial pluralism of these continuing small governments would counteract tendencies toward corruption in the wider polity (126-27).

Montesquieu's confederate republic alone was clearly not the model for the constitution makers at Philadelphia. It was rather the sort of regime which in their eyes had proved to be both inefficient and dangerous to liberty under the Articles of Confederation. Their radical transformation was to impose on it certain features of a unitary regime. For the sake of "stability and energy" (Federalist 37:227) they gave the general government a new instru- ment of power by enabling it to act directly on individuals. But their main concern (Madison, 1787:273-79; Convention: 75-77; 88-89) was to add a further protection of "republican liberty" by providing for the representation of individuals in the federal legislature.

The significance of this new scheme of representation was given its classical exposition in Madison's Tenth Federalist. His idea is an adaptation of a proposal put forward by Hume in his essay on the "Idea of a Perfect Common- wealth" (Adair, 1957:348-49, 353). In that essay, first published in 1752, Hume sketched an elaborate system of representative govern- ment and against this background attacked the "common opinion" that republican government is more likely to survive in a small than a large polity. On the contrary, he argued, the "near habitation" of the citizens of a small polity will make even their division into small parties vulnerable to "the force of popular tides and currents." In the large representative republic, however, not only will the "higher magistrates" "refine" the opinions of the voters, but also the various parts will be less likely to unite against "the public interest" (Hume: 513-15). Madison improves on this model by stressing the diversi- ty of social and economic interests that will be embraced in the more extensive republic. Thanks to the greater differentiation that goes with larger scale, the social pluralism of the general government will counteract tendencies toward a factional abuse of power in the subordinate governments.

The invention at Philadelphia transformed Montesquieu's model by integrating with it this Humean construction. The new unitary features meant that now the social pluralism of the

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

14 The American Political Science Review Vol. 72

nation as a whole would be represented in the general government, which, within limits, would be able to avert the dangers of faction within the states, while the continued existence of the states meant that, as in Montesquieu's model, territorial pluralism would constitute a safeguard against encroachments by the general government. It was a unified, internally co- herent and highly original model of a new kind of government. This invention resulted from compromise, to be sure-not the compromise of stalemate, however, but of social learning.

Federalism as Representational. In the Fed- eralist papers and the ratification debates, the new model was set forth and defended. It had a military version in which the possession of instruments of coercive force by each level held the balance for free government (Diamond 1961:55; Federalist 46:309-11, 60:390). "Power being almost always the rival of pow- er," wrote Hamilton, "the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government." His next sentence re- vealed the motor in the mechanism: "The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress" (Federalist 28:174). In short, the same force which, according to the national theory, had brought the Constitution into existence and formed its juridical foundation, the sov- ereign people, would continue to guarantee its free operation.

This military version of how the federal design would operate is hardly more than an historical curiosity today. But its authors were, of course, also thinking in larger terms and of a more political application. They expected the social pluralism of the general government to operate not only in emergencies, but also in day-to-day decision making. Nor did they see this function as merely negative-to prevent narrow and oppressive majorities from forming or acting. Their political science taught them that "the larger the society . . . the more duly capable it will be of self-government" (Federal- ist 51:341). They therefore expected that the majority coalitions which did form within the general government not only would respect "the rights of every class of citizens," but also would positively express "principles . . . of justice and the general good" (340-41). The framers were not some sort of early-day laissez- fairists. Indeed, Turgot gave them a famous

scolding for their interventionism. They lived in an age of state-building and mercantilism and fully recognized the need for active government in their developing economy. They saw no need, however, to trade off liberty for develop- ment and, although by no means utopians, they had high hopes for their political engineering, believing that its processes of mutual balance and influence would not only break the vio- lence of faction, but also produce decisions worthy of general assent.

In the Federalist papers and the ratification debates, discussion of the military aspects of the federal balance shade off into a more political version, which tells us a good deal about how the American system has actually worked and which is still vividly relevant to its operation today. "Notwithstanding the dif- ferent modes in which [the federal and state governments] are appointed," Madison wrote in the 46th Federalist, "we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States.... The federal and the State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes." "The people" is "the ultimate authority," the "common superior" of both. Nor does he mean this only in the sense of juridical foundation or military balance. He is also concerned to show how the people, acting as the common electorate of all levels of government, bring state perspectives to bear on federal decisions and federal perspec- tives to bear on state decisions. The three main propositions in his analysis are that these perspectives will not merely reflect the im- mediate wishes of the voters, but will be shaped by the processes of self-government in which the voters take part (Federalist 56:366-68; 10:59; Huntington, 1959:200; Eulau, 1974:161); that the influence between levels will pass from state to general government, but also from general government to state govern- ment (Federalist 46:306-08, 53:351, 56:368; Madison, 1787:275; Convention :74; Diamond, 1961:48-50); and finally that the medium through which this influence will be trans- mitted will be the common electorate of the two sets of governments (Federalist 46:306; 308-09; 57:371; Eulau, 1974:162).

The essence of the invention of 1787 was the use of the same electorate to choose two sets of governments, each with constitutional protection. As in the military version of the new federal system, where the people were to maintain the balance for free government by casting their weight in one or the other scale, in this political version the medium of interaction

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1978 Federalism, Nationalism and Democracy in America 15

was the common electorate. Governing himself through two different governments, the voter views the political world from two perspectives, one shaped by the social pluralism of the general government, the other shaped by the territorial pluralism of state government. In his political life, as a member of one nation, he does not separate from one another the two perspectives and the interests each elicits in him. His state perspective affects his choices and decisions in federal politics as his federal perspective affects his choices and decisions in state politics. One may call this process "repre- sentational federalism" because it gives repre- sentation in the general government to the territorial pluralism of the states and represen- tation in the state governments to the social pluralism of the general government.5

In framing and debating the new federal structure, Americans of the time were con- cerned with the same central problem that had stirred them to criticism, resistance and rebel- lion a generation before: the problem of repre- sentation. Now as then their interest in the

SI claim no originality for this view of American federalism. It is simply a restatement of the classical liberal view of the function of the division of powers in popular government. I have avoided, however, the laissez-faire deviation which conceived of this function as being merely the restraint of government action (Friedrich 1968:195-96). My interpretation has many points in common with that of Samuel P. Huntington (1959). He also sees not mere balance, but continual political interaction between the two levels of govern- ment (192) and stresses not only Madison's ex- pectation that state governments would have influence on the federal government, but also that "from Minnesota railway rates to Little Rock schools, the national government, in keeping with Madison's princi- ple, has frequently intervened to protect local mi- norities against local majorities" (198).

I have taken the term "representational federalism" and much of the analysis presented by Heinz Eulau (1974). I have adopted his notion that intergovern- mental influence is exercised through the "shared" electorate, a conclusion which need not be based on inference only, as Eulau says (162), but is clearly what Madison meant (Federalist 46:305, 306). I depart from his interpretation mainly in finding that Madison expected not only that the states would influence the general government, but, also that the general govern- ment would influence the states.

Representational federalism is not the same as cooperative federalism. The latter term refers to direct relations between levels of government, as in state or local implementation of federal grant in aid programs. The term was coined around 1938 (Graves, 1964:821), when during the New Deal the federal grant system was being vastly expanded and in this and other ways the old pattern of dual federalism was being brought to an end (see above note 1). Represen- tational federalism is compatible both with dual federalism and, as I shall argue in the second part of this paper, with cooperative federalism.

allocation of specific powers between levels of government was secondary to this overriding concern. They did believe that certain govern- ment functions were more effectively exercised at one rather than the other level. Defense, for instance, was more properly a function of the general government. Yet, guided by their pri- mary concern for liberty, they did not hesitate to divide authority over this function, giving important military powers to the states.

Federalism has often been advocated pri- marily as a means of accommodating levels of government to territorial diversity. The com- pact theory would lead one to expect this to be the major subject of debate during the framing and ratification of the Constitution. Supporters as well as critics did recognize that the "senti- ments, habits, and customs" of the states were diverse and that, therefore, "a government which might be very suitable for one might not be agreeable to the other" (Elliott 2:199). Yet the great mass of utterance at Philadelphia and the ratifying conventions displays remarkably little concern with this fact. Even the most ardent champions of greater powers for the states gave little or no weight to the argument from territorial diversity. Luther Martin, for instance, did not ground his advocacy of state power in his identification with Maryland as a distinctive community or in its need for author- ity commensurate with its special values or way of life. When he attacked the new powers of the federal government, he, as much as Madison or Hamilton, saw liberty as his goal and the new science of politics as the means for reaching that goal (Elliott 1:348-49, 351). He differed from them only in clinging to the conventional wisdom of the time as put forward in an unalloyed version of Montesquieu's theory of the confederate republic (353). It is consistent with this ground of the differences among Americans of that day over the Constitution that a bill of rights, which protected the liberties most valued by their common ideology and which was, as John Hancock said, "in no wise local, but calculated to give security and ease alike to all the states" (Elliott 2:175), served to win over critics and produce the quick subsidence of opposition that followed ratifi- cation.

New Structures of Representational Federalism

In summary, my historical thesis is: that in making a democratic revolution, the American rebels created a nation and invented representa- tional federalism as a means of governing their new national democracy.

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

16 The American Political Science Review Vol. 72

A Rationale for the States. The reason for looking at this history and especially at its theoretical component is that they tell us something important about how the American polity has actually worked and continues to work. This perspective, in the first place, throws light on what we can and cannot expect of the states today. Any modem polity will have one or more levels of government. The smaller governments may be designed simply as administrative districts under the central au- thority. They may be set up for an economic purpose, and, accordingly, endowed with pow- ers and boundaries suited to a distinctive complex of agricultural, commercial or in- dustrial activity. They may be so laid out as to match patterns of cultural differentiation, as in the case of linguistic boundaries or other indicators of diversity in community values.

None of these rationales, administrative, economic or cultural, makes sense of the American states, except occasionally and ac- cidentally. Look at the map. It must make you wonder whether there could have been a United States, if the rectangle had not been invented. Typically, those boundaries were not laid out to fit some pre-existing community of value or complex of interests, nor has it been possible to adapt them to territorial diversities as these have emerged. Most of the boundaries were dictated by Act of Congress, usually when the area was sparsely populated and had only the status of a territory. If the purpose of the states had been to provide a level of self-government functional to territorial diversity, then it would have been imperative, in this rapidly growing and developing society, that their boundaries be changed from time to time. On the contrary, however, our national policy toward federalism has been to freeze the boundaries of the states into a virtually unchangeable form by giving them constitutional protection.

Michael Reagan observes that the consti- tutional meaning of federalism still has im- portance in only one respect: the guarantee of the independent existence of the states (1972:158). This may be so, but it does not mean that federalism is dead. Such a guarantee, to be sure, is dysfunctional to an administra- tive, economic or cultural role for the states. It is, however, highly functional and, I should say, indispensable to their political role in represen- tational federalism. Even if state and federal power were completely overlapping, even if our society were perfectly homogeneous, it would still be necessary, in the light of the original design, that state government have its constitu- tionally protected existence. The rigidities of our federal system may often frustrate the

purposes of public administration, economic efficiency and community living, but they make political sense as the foundation of a major and distinctive element of our representa- tive system.

The Dual Role of Party. Over the course of time, both state and general governments have performed in various ways the roles assigned them in this system by representational federal- ism. When one asks what specific forms these processes have taken, the answer, until very recently, I suggest, would be found mainly in the mode of operation of the major political parties. The original federal design endowed the voter with two basic roles, a federal role and a state role. Typically, any major American party has reflected this dualism. The territorial plural- ism of the federal structure has had such great and obvious effect as to lead us often to speak of the parties as coalitions of state and local organizations. At the same time, we recognize that their participation in the politics of the general government draws them into a competi- tion which addresses problems and appeals to group interests transcending state and local boundaries. In spite of the resulting territorial and social pluralism, each party is also national, as a body of voters possessing at all levels of government common symbols which focus sen- timents of party identification and ideas of party principle. This affectual and cognitive identification is a bond of cohesion that helps make each party a forum within which federal and state perspectives mutually influence one another, instead of merely finding expression in separate spheres.

The politics of civil rights during the past generation provides striking illustration of how the Madisonian mechanism may work through the medium of party. I will merely suggest the outlines of this very complicated process. After World War II, the movement of southern blacks to Northern cities admitted them for the first time to effective political participation in the social pluralism of the more extensive republic. The competition of Republicans and Democrats for this vote (Brauer, 1977) led to intervention by the federal government to remedy the denial by state governments of rights generally en- joyed by American citizens (Wilhoit, 1973:201-12). At the same time, within the Democratic party an interaction between fed- eral and state levels was producing political changes tending toward the same result. Action by the national party organs supported and stimulated within some southern state parties the rise of loyalist groups favorable to civil rights. These groups fought the old leadership,

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1978 Federalism, Nationalism and Democracy in America 17

won power in state parties and influence on state government and so were able in some degree to ease the acceptance of federal initia- tives. Thanks to the party system the pluralism of the more extensive republic helped bring about a universalistic result.6

Public Sector Politics. I have made this brief reference to the way that representational federalism has worked through the medium of the party system in order by contrast to bring out the significance of a recent and major change.7 The party system operates outside government to bring influence to bear on government. Recently, however, powerful new centers of influence on what government does have arisen within government itself. These new centers of influence arise and act within what one may call the public sector of the polity. For the polity like the economy has a public sector. The private sector of the polity consists of people in their private capacities trying to influence government action. This includes their activity as individuals, as members of organized groups, as adherents of political parties. The character of the public sector of the polity is evident by contrast. It consists of people in their public capacities trying to influence government action: a chief executive vetoing a bill, legislators logrolling appropri- ations, bureaucratic experts developing new programs, mayors lobbying Congress for more federal aid.

Within this public sector of the polity two types of influence have been on the rise during

60ne of the more remarkable examples of this process is the emergence of a unified Democratic party in Mississippi. This struggle began shortly after World War II, reached a peak of intensity during the sixties and culminated in an incredible denouement when in 1976 Governor Finch, formerly an arch-segregationist, joined with Aaron Henry, an original member of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, to integrate the state party organization. An explicit element in the suggessful strategy of the loyalists was to use their influence with the national party as leverage on the regulars to gain a measure of power in the state party. There is some analysis of this process in Fortenberry (1972:493-95) and Bass (1976:207). But I am depending mainly on the detailed analysis of a long, unpublished paper by a graduate student of the Harvard Government department (Stekler, 1976).

71n the rest of this section of this paper, I am largely summarizing results of research done for an analysis of the politics of the passage of the general revenue sharing act on 1972 (Beer, 1976). Rather than citing again the evidence brought forward there and the references to other work, I shall for the most part refer to the relevant pages of that article and to some other work of mine. I regret the appearance of self-advertisement, but this procedure seems to suit a summary and certainly makes for easier reading.

the past decade or so. One results from func- tional specialization in the modern state. I call it the professional bureaucratic complex (Beer, 1976:157-66). The other results from ter- ritorial specialization and I call it the inter- governmental lobby (Beer, 1976:166-71). The action and interaction of the professional bureaucratic complex and the intergovernmen- tal lobby constitute the new form taken by representational federalism.

The growing role of professionalism in gov- ernment is so well recognized as to need only a few words to show its relevance to the present discussion. People with scientific and technical training have been important to the modern state from its very beginnings. But during the past generation or so scientific advance has proceeded at such a vastly increased rate as to give "professional specialisms" (Mosher, 1968:105) a new role in policy making (Beer, 1973:74-80). The term "professional bureau- cratic complex" is singular: the examples are many. One is the "military industrial complex," from which I adapted the name. A similar structure is shared by the "health syndicate," the "educational establishment," the "highway lobby." The main component in any such complex is a core of officials with scientific or professional training. This bureaucratic core also normally works closely with two other components: certain interested legislators, es- pecially the chairmen of the relevant specialized subcommittees, and the spokesmen for the group that benefits from the program. Such a tripartite complex or subsystem is Seidman's "iron triangle" (1970:37).

The intellectual history of federal domestic programs since the days of the Great Society is deeply marked by the influence of such com- plexes of professional expertise. I do not mean to exclude the continuing influence of more familiar political agents, such as an activist president responsive to problems and to the suggestion of problems. But I would remark how rarely additions to the public sector have been initiated by the demands of voters or the advocacy of pressure groups or the platforms of political parties. On the contrary, in the fields of health, housing, urban renewal, transporta- tion, welfare, education, poverty, and energy, it has been, in very great measure, people in government service, or closely associated with it, acting on the basis of their specialized and technical knowledge, who first perceived the problem, conceived the program, initially urged it on president and Congress, went on to help lobby it through to enactment, and then saw to its administration (Beer, 1976:160-62). Scien- tific and technical knowledge by its nature is

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

18 The American Political Science Review Vol. 72

specialized and the prodigious increase in the number of categorical grants-in-aid to state and local governments is an indication of the rising influence of professionalism. In 1962 there were some 160 separate categorical programs (Walker 1975:134). The catalog of federal grants in aid for 1976 lists 1,030. The amount of aid rose in proportion from $7 billion in 1960 to $60 billion in 1976 (CGO, 1975:25).

This expansion of the public sector was accomplished by an unprecedented use of the federal structure. With few exceptions the new specialized programs were not administered directly by the federal government, but by means of state and local governments. One might expect such attempts to join bureaucratic agents at different levels of government in the administration of specialized programs would create awkward inter-level conflicts. Actually, among similarly trained professionals their com- mon discipline has facilitated cooperation, help- ing them stand off the claims of rival disciplines and the directives of coordinating authorities. Vertical bureaucratic hierarchies cutting across different levels of government have become a main feature of the present phase of American federalism.

Technocracy and Topocracy. The general term which suggests the decision-making power based on technical expertise of the new profes- sionals is "technocratic" (Beer, 1973 :74-80; 1977a:30-34). By using it I do not mean to raise fears of a dictatorship of men in white coats. On the contrary, one of the more interesting features of this new influence is the way in which it has promoted the rise of a countervailing power in the form of the inter- governmental lobby (Farkas, 1971; Haider, 1974; Plant, 1975). By the intergovernmental lobby I mean the governors, mayors, county supervisors and other officeholders, usually elective, who exercise general responsibilities in state and local governments.

Like the new professionalism the intergov- ernmental lobby in some form can be found in other advanced countries. A term suitable for comparative use is needed. I propose the word "topocrat," from the Greek topos, meaning "place" or "locality," and kratos, meaning "authority"-and herewith thank its author, Roy Macridis, who responded to my request for a single, general and non-American term that would save me from having to say "state and local government officials" and the equivalent mouth-filling phrase when speaking of other countries.

In the United States these topocrats act in a representative capacity through their organiza-

tions, the National Governors Conference, the Council of State Governments, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the International City Management Association, and the National Legislative Con- ference, and through alliances of them, such as the "Big Six" during the initial enactment of general revenue sharing. But their most im- portant front lies along the continual, almost day-to-day activity of individual officeholders and their agents, offering advice and pressing requests before the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

To appreciate the significance of this activity we must remind ourselves how very recently state and local officeholders began to take an interest of this kind and degree in what goes on in Washington. Their sudden surge of activity dates from the mid-sixties and came as a response to the increase in federal programs spawned by the new professionalism. As the mayors and other executives of the govern- ments through which these programs were carried out became aware of their value-their political value and their problem-solving promise-they developed a heightened interest in and increasing contact with federal policy making and administration. Their Washington activities grew and their national organizations headquartered there expanded in members, budgets and staffs. In this sense it was not the lobby that created the programs but the pro- grams of the professional bureaucratic complex that created the intergovernmental lobby (Beer, 1976:163-71).

In time the intergovernmental lobby acquired sufficient political influence to initiate demands more closely reflecting its members' political interests. A major demand was for fewer federal strings on more federal money. Accordingly, in the past few years the mayors, governors, county executives and others have played a major role in bringing about a shift in the character of federal aid. In 1966 categorical aid accounted for 98 percent of federal aid. By 1975 it was down to 75 percent as a result of general revenue sharing and block grants (GCO, 1976:26).

In brief, then, I am saying that over the past generation and especially since the early sixties the technocratic tendencies of the new profes- sionalism have called forth the topocratic tendencies of the intergovernmental lobby. If one asks whether the process has been cen- tralizing or decentralizing the answer must be a bit complicated. It has been strongly centraliz- ing insofar as the new programs have carried the technocratic perspectives formed at the federal

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1978 Federalism, Nationalism and Democracy in America 19

level into the daily thought and action of state and local governments. It has been decentraliz- ing in that these governments, as the admini- strative agents of the new programs, have often been able to adapt them to their own local purposes, an option that has been deliberately expanded by some loosening of federal strings. The process was centralizing in that it drew state and local office holders into direct contact with the federal government and decentralizing in that it has brought their topocratic perspec- tives to bear on federal policy making. The trend is not toward a centralized unitary system. Neither is there much sign of signifi- cantly greater autonomy for state or local governments. But whatever that balance may be, the interesting and important thing, it seems to me, is the way in which the polarity of representational federalism has been reasserted. The impact of technocrat and topocrat upon opposing levels of government is adding a new dimension in an old pattern to our system of national representation.

Comparative Perspectives

In advanced countries today, there is a good deal of concern over the great and growing size of the public sector of the economy (Beer, 1977b). In this article I have dealt with a parallel development in the United States: the growing influence of the public sector of the polity and specifically the emergence of new structures of representation within that sector. These structures reflect enduring traits of American federalism. They also resemble cer- tain developments in other advanced countries and their study should therefore be assimilated to the comparative study of the contemporary welfare state.

That study is often focused on the conflicts and connections of function and territory, of center and periphery (Ashford, 1976a, 1976b; Tarrow, 1977). My similar concern with the interaction of social pluralism and territorial pluralism in the American experience suggests two broad questions for comparison and con- trast with other countries.

First, the technocratic question. Profes- sionalism extends its domains in all advanced countries and surely will continue to do so. The modern state at this late date is not likely to turn its back on science and technology. In these countries, as in the United States, there has been a surge of social spending since the 1 960s. Professional, centrally directed hier-

archies are the normal agencies of the programs financed by this spending.

But whom or what do these agencies repre- sent? In their dealings with their local authori- ties they represent their central governments. To what extent do they also represent social and economic interests within the society and outside the public sector? In many welfare states, beginning as far back as the interwar years, organized interests developed relations with government departments so close and institutionalized as to constitute a system of functional representation. How far are the professional hierarchies of recent years depen- dencies of these corporatistic arrangements? How far are they veritably technocratic in the sense of generating their own initiatives from within the public sector and independently of ourside interests? In what ways, if any, is the social pluralism of modem society transmitted to the professional bureaucratic complex?

Second, the topocratic question. In spite of overpowering forces making for centralization, the modem state seems to be unable to do without territorial subunits. Nor are these mere branch offices of administration, but rather governmental units with a political capacity. Much has been said, but little done in any country about decentralizing power to them or enlarging their autonomy. They have been widely used, however, as vehicles for carrying out the programs of central governments and, at the same time, have taken an increasingly active role as agents of representation before, and indeed, within those central governments. In other countries, both unitary and federal, the equivalent of the American- intergovern- mental lobby has appeared and flourishes. These varieties of topocratic representation are many and complex and light up major contrasts among the different versions of the modem state.

As we will want to look into the relation of technocratic representation to older processes of pressure group politics and functional repre- sentation, we shall also ask what are the conflicts and connections between topocratic representation and the older structures of ter- ritorial representation. In the U.S., for instance, the political relations of mayors and members of Congress are one of the great unexplored mysteries.

Moreover, whom does the topocrat represent when he formulates the presumed needs of his government before central authorities? He will commonly speak on behalf of groups among his constituents. He may know and be responsive to them. He might even have been chosen by

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

20 The American Political Science Review Vol. 72

them in part because he was expected to be a good lobbyist in the national capital. Yet he is subject not only to their wishes, but also to an array of influences proceeding from his position as the agent of a bureaucratic and political body. This governmental position will affect and may dominate his representative role.

I can communicate my unease at these technocratic and topocratic dilutions of the popular will by saying that the new structures have a strong connotation of corporate rather than personal representation. They do add real strengths to the modem state. But this may be at some cost to free government.

References

Adair, Douglass (1957)." 'That politics may be re- duced to a science': David Hume, James Madison, and the Tenth Federalist," Huntington Library Quarterly 20:343-60.

Adams, John (1774). "Novanglus; or a history of the dispute with America from its origin in 1754, to the present time." In Charles Francis Adams (ed.), The Works of John Adams, vol. 4. Boston: Little, Brown.

Ashford, Douglas E. (1976a). The Limits of Con- sensus: The Reorganization of British Local Govern- ment and the French Contrast. Western European societies program, occasional paper no. 6. Ithaca, N.Y.

(1976b). "Territory vs. function: toward a policy-based theory of subnational government." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Sept. 2-5, 1977.

Bailyn, Bernard (1967). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bancroft, George (1888). History of the United States of America from the Discovery of the Continent [through the ratification of the Constitution]. 6 vols. New York: Appleton.

Bass, Jack, and Walter De Vries (1976). The Transfor- mation of Southern Politics. New York: Basic Books.

Beer, Samuel H. (1969). British Politics in the Col- lectivist Age. New York: Knopf.

(1973). "The modernization of American federalism." In Daniel J. Elazar (ed.), The Federal Polity. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 3(2):49-95.

(1976). "The adoption of general revenue sharing: a case study in public sector politics." Public Policy 24:127-95.

(1977a). "A political scientist's view of fiscal federalism." In Wallace E. Oates (ed.), The Political Economy of Fiscal Federalism. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

(1977b). "Political overload and federalism." Polity: the Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association 10:5-17.

Brauer, Carl M. (1977). John F. Kennedy and the

Second Reconstruction. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press.

CGO (1976). U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations. Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1975. Report to ac- company S. 2925, 94th Cong., 2d. sess., S. Rept. 1137.

Convention. Notes of debates in the federal conven- tion of 1787 reported by James Madison. Intro- duced by Adrienne Koch. New York, Norton: 1969.

Corwin, Edward S. (1934). The Twilight of the Supreme Court. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Universi- ty Press.

(1950). "The passing of dual federalism." Virginia Law Review 36:1-24.

(1974). The Constitution and What it Means Today. Revised by Harold W. Chase and Craig R. Ducat. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Diamond, Martin (1961). "The Federalist's view of federalism." In George C. S. Benson (ed.), Essays in Federalism. Claremont, Calif.: Institute for Studies in Federalism.

De Grazia, Alfred (1951). Public and Republic: Political Representation in America. New York: Knopf.

Dickinson, John (1767). "The farmer's letters to the inhabitants of the British colonies." Political writ- ings. vol. 1. Wilmington, Del.: Bonsal and Niles.

Elazar, Daniel J. (1962). The American Partnership: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Nineteenth- Century United States. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.

(1973). "Cursed by bigness or toward a post-technocratic federalism." In Dariel J. Elazar (ed.), The Federal Polity. Publius: the Journal of Federalism 3(2):239-98.

Elliott, Johnathan, ed. (1836). Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution... 4 vols. 2 ed. Washington, D.C.

Eulau, Heinz (1973). "Polarity in representational federalism: a neglected theme of political theory." In Daniel J. Elazar (ed.), The Federal Polity. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 3(2):1 53 -71.

Farkas, Suzanne (1971). Urban Lobbying: Mayors in the Federal Area. New York: New York University Press.

Federalist. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison. The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States. Nos. 1-85 (1787-88). Introduced by Edward Mead Earle. New York, 1937: Modern Library.

Fortenberry, Charles N., and F. Glenn Abney (1972). "Mississippi: unreconstructed and unredeemed." In William C. Havard (ed.), The Changing Politics of the South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Franklin, Benjamin. The Writings of Benjamin Frank- lin. Albert H. Smyth (ed.), vol. 4. New York: Macmillan, 1905 -07.

Friedrich, Carl J. (1968). Constitutional Government and Democracy: Theory and Practice in Europe and America. 4th ed. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell.

Graves, W. Brooke (1964). American Intergovern- mental Relations: Their Origins, Historical Develop- ment and Current Status. New York: Scribner's.

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1978 Federalism, Nationalism and Democracy in America 21

Grodzins, Morton (1966). The American System: A New View of Government in the United States. Daniel J. Elazar (ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Haider, Donald H. (1974). When Governments Come to Washington: Governors, Mayors and Intergovern- mental Lobbying. New York: Free Press.

Hartz, Louis (1955). The Liberal Tradition in Ameri- ca. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Hume, David (1963; first published 1741-42). Essays: Moral, Political and Literary. London: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1959). "The founding fathers and the division of powers." In Arthur Maass (ed.), Area and Power: A Theory of Local Government. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Lincoln, Abraham (1861). "Message to Congress, July 4, 1861." In Henry Steele Commager (ed.), Docu- ments of American History. 7th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Lindsay, A. D. (1943). The Modern Democratic State. London: Oxford University Press.

Madison, James (1787). Letter of October 24, 1787, to Thomas Jefferson. In Julian P. Boyd (ed.), The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton, N.J.: Prince- ton University Press, 1950-74. vol. 12:270-84.

McLaughlin, Andrew C. (1918). "The background of American federalism." American Political Science Review 12:215-40.

(1936). A Constitutional History of the United States. New York: Appleton-Century. Montesquieu (1949; first published 1748). The Spirit

of the Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent. Intro- duced by Franz Neumann. New York: Macmillan.

Morris, Richard (1974). "The forging of the union reconsidered: a historical refutation of state sov- ereignty over seabeds." Columbia Law Review 74:1056-93.

Mosher, Frederick C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nathan, Richard P. (1975). "The new federalism versus the emerging new structuralism." Publius: the Journal of Federalism 5(3):111-29.

and Charles F. Adams, Jr., et al. (1977). Revenue Sharing: The Second Round. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.

Pamphlets. Bernard Bailyn with Jane N. Garrett (1965). Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Plant, Jeremy (1975). The Big Seven: The Role of

Public Official Associations in the American Politi- cal System. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Politi- cal Science, University of Virginia.

Rakove, Jack Norman (1975). The Continental Con- gress and the Beginnings of National Politics, 1774-1789. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. To be published by Knopf in 1979.

Ranney, Austin (1976). " 'The divine science': poli- tical engineering in American culture," American Political Science Review 70:140-48.

Reagan, Michael D. (1972). The New Federalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Riley, Patrick (1968). Historical Development of the Theory of Federalism, Sixteenth-Nineteenth Cen- turies. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1947). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 2nd ed. New York: Harper.

Seidman, Harold (1970). Politics, Position and Power. New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Page (1956). James Wilson: Founding Father, 1742-1798. Chapel Hill: University of North Caro- lina Press.

Stekler, Paul Jeffrey (1976). "The unification of the Mississippi democratic party: realignment and reori- entation in Mississippi politics." Unpublished paper, Department of Government, Harvard University.

Sundquist, James L. with David Davis (1969).Making Federalism Work: A Study of Program Coordination at the Community Level. Washington, D.C.: Brook- ings.

Tarrow, Sidney (1977). Introduction to Luigi Grazi- ano, Peter J. Katzenstein and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), Territorial Politics in Industrial States. Draft MS.

Van Tyne, Claude H. (1907). "Sovereignty in the American revolution." American Historical Review 12:529-45.

(1922). The Causes of the War of Indepen- dence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

(1929). The War of Independence: American Phase. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Walker, David B. (1975). "The new system of inter- governmental assistance: some initial notes." Pub- lius: the Journal of Federalism 5(3):131-45.

Wilhoit, Francis M. (1973). The Politics of Massive Resistance. New York: Braziller.

Wilson, James (1967; first published 1774). "Con- siderations on the nature and extent of the legisla- tive authority of the British parliament." In Robert G. McCloskey (ed.), The Works of James Wilson. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms