Zo vaak komt Nederland voor in The Federalist Papers

In The Federalist Papers, het beroemde boek over de Amerikaanse Grondwet uit 1788, komt Nederland vaak voor. Vooral als voorbeeld van hoe je een republiek niet moet inrichten.

The Federalist Papers bestaat uit 85 essays die de kiezers moesten overtuigen om voor de Amerikaanse Grondwet te stemmen. Ze zijn geschreven door Alexander Hamilton, James Madison en John Jay. Nog steeds gelden ze als aanbevolen literatuur voor iedereen die wil weten hoe je een overheid het best kunt laten functioneren.

Nederland komt voor in de volgende twaalf essays:

1. In essay nummer 6 (geschreven door Hamilton): ‘The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.’
2. In essay nummer 11 (geschreven door Hamilton): ‘It has been said that prohibitions on our part would produce no change in the system of Britain, because she could prosecute her trade with us through the medium of the Dutch, who would be her immediate customers and paymasters for those articles which were wanted for the supply of our markets. But would not her navigation be materially injured by the loss of the important advantage of being her own carrier in that trade? Would not the principal part of its profits be intercepted by the Dutch, as a compensation for their agency and risk?’
3. In essay nummer 19 (geschreven door Madison): ‘That separation had another consequence, which merits attention. It produced opposite alliances with foreign powers: of Berne, at the head of the Protestant association, with the United Provinces; and of Luzerne, at the head of the Catholic association, with France.’
4. Essay nummer 20 (geschreven door Madison) is geheel aan Nederland gewijd.
5. In essay nummer 22 (geschreven door Hamilton): ‘It is well known that the deputies of the United Provinces have, in various instances, been purchased by the emissaries of the neighboring kingdoms. The Earl of Chesterfield (if my memory serves me right), in a letter to his court, intimates that his success in an important negotiation must depend on his obtaining a major’s commission for one of those deputies.’
6. In essay 29 (geschreven door Hamilton): ‘Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d’ors and ducats.’
7. In essay nummer 34 (geschreven door Madison): ‘What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Where an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic.’
8. In essay nummer 37 (geschreven door Madison): ‘We had occasion, in a former paper, to take notice of the repeated trials which have been unsuccessfully made in the United Netherlands for reforming the baneful and notorious vices of their constitution.’
9. In essay nummer 42 (geschreven door Madison): ‘Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.’
10. In essay nummer 43 (geschreven door Madison): ‘As the confederate republic of Germany,’ says Montesquieu, ‘consists of free cities and petty states, subject to different princes, experience shows us that it is more imperfect than that of Holland and Switzerland.’
11. In essay nummer 54 (geschreven door Madison): ‘The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United Netherlands, and other similar confederacies.’
12. In nummer 75 (geschreven door Hamilton): ‘If two thirds of the whole number of members had been required, it would, in many cases, from the non-attendance of a part, amount in practice to a necessity of unanimity. And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. Proofs of this position might be adduced from the examples of the Roman Tribuneship, the Polish Diet, and the States-General of the Netherlands, did not an example at home render foreign precedents unnecessary.’

Bron: voor deze lijst is gebruikgemaakt van de Penguin-editie van The Federalist Papers die in 1987 verscheen. De essays zijn ook op internet te vinden, bijvoorbeeld hier of hier. Een hertaling in hedendaags Engels is hier te vinden.