Next in my Daily Book Excerpt:
Next book in my Political section:
The Federalist Papers
Written in a period of months from 1787 to 1788 – spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton (otherwise known as “Sheila’s dead boyfriend“) – the 85 essays that appeared in 4 of the 5 newspapers in New York were created in order to convince the people of the state of New York why they should agree to the ratification of the Constitution. The Constitutional Congress concluded in the early fall of 1787, with all of the delegates returning to their respective states to begin the ratification process. What ended up being known as “The Federalist Papers” were a blitzkrieg of pro-Constitution propaganda. We are so lucky to have them. If you want to understand the Constitution? Read the Federalist Papers. They set out to explain to the reluctant public (who were, in general, horrified at this idea of an “energetic” national government) why a Constitution was necessary, and the whys and wherefores of each part of it. It’s an extraordinary work – hugely important – and really explains the inner workings of the grand experiment called the United States. Hamilton did the lion’s share of the work (no surprise there – the man was unbelievable. Was he a mortal man or some freak of nature? His productivity was astonishing). Madison wrote, what is perhaps, the most well-known of the papers – Federalist # 10 (I babbled about it here, on the morning of election day), where he warns against faction and the creating of political parties (although he didn’t use that word). Fascinating that Madison later, with the turbulent election of 1800, become a genius at party politics. No matter. His Federalist #10 should be required reading. I want to stand over certain politicians in Washington and feed it to them manually. (Now that’s an image.)
Each essay appeared under the name “Publius”. The depth and breadth of the essays are amazing, considering the speed in which they were written, and the frequency in which they appeared. Frankly, the entire series takes my breath away.
Hamilton is an interesting case. Born illegitimate (in the immortal words of one of his many enemies, John Adams: “the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler”), in the Caribbean – he came to the United States at the age of 15 to further his education. Because he was not affiliated with any one State, his concerns were different than the other delegates at the Constitution, his outlook completely original. He believed in AMERICA, not in a particular State. His loyalty was to the Union, from the beginning. I think his perspective allowed him to see farther ahead than anybody else. Truly. He predicted the industrial revolution, far before anyone else did, for example. It would no longer be land that would make someone wealthy, it would be money itself. You wonder how he did it – but I really think it had something to do with his foreign birth, his hard-scrabble beginnings, and the fact that he came to America as an outsider.
The excerpt for today is from Federalist # 15, one of a couple of essays in the series where Hamilton takes on the old Articles of Confederation that Congress, with its new Constitution, was looking to get rid of. He predicts that the Articles will not be strong enough to handle the problems of the nation in the future. The States must consolidate.
“they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names”
“If their works betray imperfections, we wonder at the fewness of them.”
Incredible.
EXCERPT FROM The Federalist Papers
As almost every State will be one side or the other, be a frontier, and will thus find in a regard to its safety, an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection; so the States which lie at the greatest distance from the heart of the union, and which of course may partake least of the ordinary circulation of its benefits, will be at the same time immediately contiguous to foreign nations, and will consequently stand on particular occasions, in greatest need of its strength and resources. It may be inconvenient for Georgia or the States forming our western or north eastern borders to send their representatives to the seat of government, but they would find it more so to struggle alone against an invading enemy, or even to support alone the whole expence of those precautions, which may be dictated by the neighborhood of continual danger. If they should derive less benefit therefore from the union in some respects, than the less distant States, they will derive greater benefit from it in other respects, and thus the proper equilibrium will be maintained throughout.
I submit to you my fellow citizens, these considerations, in full confidence that the good sense which has so often marked your decisions, will allow them their due weight and effect; and that you will never suffer difficulties, however formidable in appearance or however fashionable the error on which they may be founded, to drive you into the gloomy and perilous scene into which the advocates for disunion would conduct you. Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many chords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no longer be fellow citizens of one great respectable and flourishing empire. Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended for your adoption is a novelty in the political world; that it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to accomplish.
No my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys; the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate the union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe me the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rending us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness. But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness.
Had no important step been taken by the leaders of the revolution for which a precedent could not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at this moment, have been numbered among the melancholy victims of misguided councils, must at best have been labouring under the weight of some of those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest of mankind. Happily for America, happily we trust for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society: They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate. If their works betray imperfections, we wonder at the fewness of them. If they erred most in the structure of the union; this was the work most difficult to be executed; this is the work which has been new modelled by the act of your Convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide.
PUBLIUS.
I finally bought myself a copy, a week or so back.
The Federalist Papers are a brilliant work, but I hope you also get a chance to read the Anti-Federalist papers (and before you ask, no I have not read either exhaustively).
Some of the essays of each were direct responses to the other, although the FP can be considered a unified work. The AFP is more a collection of unrelated essays. It’s fascinating to read them together to see the arguments of both sides at the same time.
Ken – I haven’t read that – I will have to track it down. It sounds very cool.
Here’s a good place to start: http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
And here is a great chart that shows some of the specific rebuttal arguments to the Federalist:
http://www.constitution.org/afp/dewitt02.htm
The anti-Federalist arguments led directly to incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. As much as I can admire the Federalist, I think this was the great shining triumph of the anti-Federalist movement.
There’s that great quote from George Washington, Ken, after the Constitutional Convention … about how they could not have succeeded without opposing views. The opposing views helped clarify what needed to be changed, looked at, altered …
I’ll see if I can find it – I know I posted it here somwhere.
I can think of plenty of politicians, talking heads, and other public figure types now who would do well to remember George Washington’s words.
Without the opposition, they wouldn’t have had to defend themselves so fiercely – which meant that they wouldn’t have had to think about things as deeply or as thoroughly.
Here’s the quote from Washington, fall of 1787:
“Upon the whole, I doubt whether the opposition to the Constitution will not ultimately be productive of more good than evil; it has called forth, in its defence, abilities which would not perhaps have been otherwise exerted that have thrown new light upon the science of Government, they have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible a manner, as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.”
Amen.
Beautiful, Sheila! I had forgotten that quote.
Thurgood Marshall once lamented that there was no good, intellectual opposition to the civil rights legislation of the 60s (though I lament his discounting of Barry Goldwater); had there been, the legislation and court decisions would have been far better.
I love the Federalist Papers. I had a copy in high school but it fell apart, I still havent gotten a new one. Great excerpts. :)
I can think of plenty of recent-day examples. More of missed opportunities, actually. The polarization is complete. The sides demonize one another. And so now what? Political rhetoric is shallow, blunt, and based on assumptions. It is UNEXAMINED thought. The worst kind. Those doing the demonizing (the ones on the winning side, I mean) are missing a great opportunity to actually clarify what it is they are doing, and why. They owe it to us. Missed opportunity. They’re afraid of disagreement to such a pathological level that all they can do is shout “treason”.
Too bad.
That kind of rhetoric has totally turned me off, and I’m a political junkie.; They would do well not to alienate people like me completely.