Today, the federal government assumes the power to own and regulate about 1 million square miles of land within the United States. Despite this, the writers and ratifiers of the United States Constitution intended for the federal government to administer much less land, and only in certain cases.

Certainly, the sheer volume of land that the federal government maintains power over would be a shock to the founders. Being this the case, it is pertinent to point to the original intentions of those who wrote the Constitution and those who considered it as the definitive basis for the federal government’s boundaries.

Realizing that the legislature, executive office, and judiciary instituted by the proposed plan for government would require physical space, the writers of the Constitution sought to create a special administrative district that could facilitate the presence of the general government:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”

This region of 100 square miles would be acquired through a deliberate grant of the state(s) it would be located in, and Congress would ultimately have to accept the location.

This area of land would be a considered as a special administrative district, guided by exclusive congressional legislation, and would be inferior in stature as compared to the state governments. This was because all of the states considering ratification of the document possessed republican governments that preceded the existence of the forthcoming general government. As such, they were considered as sovereign entities that would continue to possess all authority they did not delegate. In contrast, the capitol of the United States would be guided by the regulatory laws of Congress.

This provision was not especially controversial in the Philadelphia Convention, but George Mason of Virginia did propose that the seat of the general government should not reside in the same city as the capitol of any state government. Mason reasoned that positioning the seat of government in the same location as a state capitol would create disputes concerning jurisdiction between that state and the general government.[1] Mason received some support from several others, including Alexander Martin of North Carolina, John Langdon of New Hampshire, and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. Furthermore, Pierce Butler of South Carolina wished to include a stipulation that fixated the seat of the government at a specific location in the Constitution itself.[2] Neither proposal was ultimately incorporated into the finalized Constitution.

Even with the requirement of state land concession, Rufus King of Massachusetts thought it would be inconvenient to allow Congress to change the location of the capitol at will. Joined by James Madison, he proposed that the Constitution require a law to be passed to remove the current location as well. Still, Madison’s notes reflect that some were apprehensive that this addition would cause government functions to be “continued at an improper place if a law should be made necessary to a removal.” The convention made a contentious decision not to adopt King’s proposal, and the seat of government could be changed in the finalized Constitution by the will of the legislature and state(s) involved in relinquishment of land.[3]

In several state ratification conventions, federal control over exclusive regulatory power over the seat of government spurred considerable debate. In New York’s ratification convention, Thomas Tredwell considered the area of 100 square miles to be far too large, and said the power was destined to create a “political hive, where all the drones in the society are to be collected to feed on the honey of the land.”[4]

In Virginia, the provision raised the ire of Patrick Henry and George Mason. Henry expressed the following trepidation:

“If Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen; for that Congress would not be confined to the enumerated powers.”[5]

Henry feared that the general government would use this power to violate the enumerated powers doctrine by going venturing beyond the authority the states delegated. For instance, if the federal government acted to violate the freedom of press, Henry cautioned that there would be nothing to prohibit it. Mason agreed with the concern, remarking that “there were few clauses in the Constitution so dangerous” as this one.[6]

In response, George Nicholas countered that “no state would consent to injure itself,” and that the states ceding this area would have to do so voluntarily. Adding to this, Edmund Pendleton explained:

“If they shoul