Introduction:
Owing to the wave of intense debate surrounding the nature of government, it seems that now is the time to revisit the founding document of our nation. One may read over the Constitution and may form various opinions, but no one’s opinion can be considered superior to anyone else’s. No lawyer who has studied its applications has a more competent interpretation of the Constitution than a layman possessing a mastery of Colonial language. It may be read and understood by all.
There are, however, opinions that might be regarded as expert. The writers of the Federalist Papers were all accomplished lawyers and served as members of the Constitutional Convention, therefore their opinions reflect how the Constitution was envisioned to function by its framers. These men may be looked to as experts.
Not only that, but the Federalist Papers were presented as arguments against its most powerful detractors. It has been the experience of this author that whenever someone works alone, or solely with people who agree with him or her, the product is not the best it could be. But when two people who disagree work together, the product is of a particularly high quality. The product of such an environment must be possessed of the flexibility, excellence, and centrality to allow the opposition to accept it.
Therefore the Federalist Papers may not only be looked at as expert opinions on how the Founders expected their government to operate, but also an expose of the Constitution’s innate inclusiveness. The Constitution and opinions regarding it are presented as persuasive pieces, and merit our attention in studying them. For in them we not only understand what the original vision was, but we also find that it was prepared to be acceptable by all.
***
The Constitution was forged in the inferno created by thirteen diverse states coming together to collaborate. It was hotly contested, no where hotter than in New York. The Anti-Federalists fought against the newly proposed Constitution. To counter these attacks, three men joined under the pen name of Publius and published a series of eight-five essays, between October 27, 1787 and May 28, 1788. These men presented their case as to why the Constitution should be ratified. These Essays were published in newspapers around New York and became known as the Federalist Papers.
In one sense, the very fact that the Constitution was written at all was a miracle, and it was unlikely that any sort of agreement could occur again. The Constitution was not only the best, but probably the only version of a government that would ever unify the States. It is not flawless, but it unified us, and it is our law.
As Americans we regard the Constitution as possessing an equal reverence as the Bible. It is difficult to believe that at one time it was terribly controversial. In some states it was ratified by a very slim majority. It is not only a miracle it was ever written and agreed upon by the delegates, but also that it was accepted by the States.
Before the Constitution, the thirteen States were unified by a contract called the Articles of Confederation. It provided a very weak central government, unable to defend the Continent. The act of creating a Constitution was itself a revolution, and in the eyes of some, an illegal act. It was ambitious and sought, more than anything else, to create a government which the States could unify behind. The Articles of Confederation did not provide this, and left the country vulnerable. Therefore this Constitution was a last hope to define America’s quest for liberty and democracy and turn it into a success. Without the Constitution we were at great risk of falling into disunion.
***
The short history lesson above will allow our discussion of the Federalist Papers to reference the appropriate context. It is hardly necessary to establish the importance of the Constitution in the minds of modern readers. It is, however, necessary to establish the importance of the Federalist Papers. Here are your authors:
John Jay was the first Supreme Court Chief Justice and served as an expert on foreign relations.
James Madison served as the Fourth President of the United States and is known as the Father of the Constitution because of his role in organizing the Convention that built it.
Alexander Hamilton is hardly known at all (look at a ten dollar bill) but was a wild, brilliant mind and wrote feverishly on all subjects political.
The purpose of this work is to retell the Federalist Papers in a way that is both readable to a modern audience and relevant to our time.
Federalist One:
In this essay Alexander Hamilton begins the argumentative process with an introduction. This being only a few years after our treaty with Britain ending the Revolutionary War, American pride was still hot. We represented a new age in which men of liberty could stand up to the monarchs of Europe and beat them. Hamilton writes,
It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.
Hamilton is making a very important statement here. The history of mankind is a struggle for power. Victorious general proclaims himself Emperor and reigns jealously, over and over and over. In the American Revolution we had a different scenario. George Washington beat the British and then his army marched on Congress to demand payment. Rather than lead a coupe and proclaim himself king, Washington used his mastery of human nature to persuade his generals to disband and wait patiently for their compensation.
At that point, the pattern that gave despots their power, from Alexander the Great to Oliver Cromwell, was destroyed. Washington was not the Father of his Country because he was its first ruler, he was the Father because he didn’t seize power by force. He allowed the creative wheel to turn in the heads of his countrymen, and let them build the best government they could.
So that is Hamilton’s question: can we actually establish a good government, or are we doomed to have governments established for us. Tyrants establish governments based on how to best control their subjects; the Constitution was established out of deliberation and consciousness of the common good, or in Hamilton’s words, reflection and choice.
In Hamilton’s statement is an underlying promise, that the Constitution for which he argues does not depend on “accident and force” for its Authority. It perpetuates “reflection and choice,” which allows its citizens the best life possible. Voting in the Constitution doesn’t make us free once to choose our doom, but free forever. It is important that we understand that.
Failing to ratify the Constitution, he tells us, will “deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of all mankind.” Is Hamilton being hyperbolic here? Is he really telling us that if they don’t ratify the Constitution that the whole planet will suffer? That’s exactly what he’s saying. Because free men had the chance to fight and win a war. It had never happened before and it’s not likely to happen again. If the people of New York didn’t allow the liberty-affirming Constitution to be established then the world would never see if we could succeed or not. It was their duty to ratify the new Constitution; it is our duty to be true to it.
Hamilton offers a warning that will be repeated by our Founding Fathers over and over, and that is that ambitious men who love nothing more than their power will hate the Constitution. They will see it as a threat to their current State positions and they will try to split the Union for their own selfish short-sightedness.
Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter… [is] the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power… they hold under the State-establishments—and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will… flatter themselves with the fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire.
In New York, especially, Governor Clinton believed he could use his state’s geographic position to split the South from the North and become the ruler of the northern half. It was against these kinds of men that fought against the Constitution. It is this sort of ambition-at-any-price that continues to threaten the Constitution, whose end goal was liberty and justice for all.
Hamilton warns against those possessed of “passions and prejudices little favourable to the discovery of truth,” and against those who “are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right, in any controversy.” You can use this standard to judge who the enemies of liberty are. Those with a closed mind; those who use emotional arguments instead of logical ones; and those who belittle anyone who disagrees with them, rather than seriously considering the opposing viewpoint.
Hamilton begins to set up the spirit of the remainder of the essays. Some of his points are very important to look at and to consider whether we see such frank openness in our public leaders today.
He refuses to force his viewpoint on others, stating that, “Nothing could be more illjudged than that intolerant spirit… For in politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and the sword.” It is through sound argument that we may justly come to the best solution.
He openly admits, speaking for Madison and Jay as well, that he has a biased opinion, and that his essays will be in favor of the Constitution.
Yes, my Countrymen, I own to you, that, after given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion, it is in your best interest to adopt it. I am convinced, that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I effect not reserves, which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation, when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded.
This is honest argument. He’s not trying to dupe you or to create a dramatic show. He will speak honest of his opinions, as will the others, but without forcing them. He tells his audience how he feels, but he also encourages them to seek the truth. No one is expected not to listen to alternative arguments, only to consider the ones he will present.
From here, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay will lay out their arguments. They will be honest, open, and comprehensive. “My arguments will be open to all, and maybe judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit, which will not disgrace the cause of truth.” This is the behavior of people who argued in favor of it then, and still do defend the Constitution today.
