Original documents: The Federalist Papers

  • Thread starter Thread starter sringwal
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 17
  • Views: 210
  • Politics 

sringwal

Esteemed Member
Messages
682
There has been a lot of talk lately about “original intent” vs. life today, particularly regarding what was and was not envisioned at the time. I thought it might be good, then, to explore original documents from the lens of both the “then” and the “now.” I read the Federalist Papers in college and thought that they might be a great place to start. With that in mind, I am going to post one of the federalist papers each day for as long as people are interested in discussing them. If it goes well, and we get through all 80, then we can move onto other suggested documents.
 

Federalist No. 1​

General Introduction

For the Independent Journal.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. 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. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect 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. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

PUBLIUS.

  1. The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution
 
I get tired of hearing about the intent of the founders. They had no idea what we would be facing today.
 
Last edited:
I get tired of people bitching about the decisions that were made by our Founders in forming America simply because they aren't currently getting their way. These decisions have provided us with a relatively stable form of government for nearly 250 years. They included not one but two different methods to amend the Constitution and ample opportunity to elect new representation through elections. If you don't like something, grow a pair and mount a drive for a Constitutional amendment to fix it. Or run for elected office. Persistent whining achieves nothing except annoying the rest of us.
 
No offense to the original poster, but I'm not sure you'll get much participation from the lawyers. It's like going back to law school for us. Been there, done that.
 
I get tired of people bitching about the decisions that were made by our Founders in forming America simply because they aren't currently getting their way. These decisions have provided us with a relatively stable form of government for nearly 250 years. They included not one but two different methods to amend the Constitution and ample opportunity to elect new representation through elections. If you don't like something, grow a pair and mount a drive for a Constitutional amendment to fix it. Or run for elected office. Persistent whining achieves nothing except annoying the rest of us.
Come on, Bubba. You sound like some "Murica, love it or leave it" nitwit. I hope you're better than that, but this post doesn't help your cause.

You know damn well that we haven't had a "stable form of government for nearly 250 years". Hell, we fought a GOD-DAMMED CIVIL WAR over the subjugation of a sizable part of our population. Then we spent another 100 years keeping these same people at second-class citizen status. We only had a teetering, flimsy democracy for maybe 50 years until the MAGA goons came on the scene.

Talk about annoying. Try again, Bubba. This time, take off your fantasy MAGA history goggles.
 
You conveniently left out the "relatively stable" in my original post. Yeah, we had a civil war and the cause was addressed by the 13th Amendment. I promise you I'm in the Originalist area of the Venn diagram that doesn't overlap with MAGA.
 
You conveniently left out the "relatively stable" in my original post. Yeah, we had a civil war and the cause was addressed by the 13th Amendment. I promise you I'm in the Originalist area of the Venn diagram that doesn't overlap with MAGA.
An originalist - maybe. A student of history - I don't think so. Take a close look at your beloved 13th Amendment you speak of. What clause in that amendment served as a bulwark for the continued subjugation of blacks in the former Confederate states for another 100 years?

If by "relatively stable", you mean the country was relatively consistent in subjugating a sizeable part of its population to de facto and/or de jure slavery for 4/5 of its history, congratulations, you're right. "Relatively stable" - you crack me up, Bubba. Perhaps you should crack open a book and read some REAL history, not the kind meant to keep white snowflakes proud of themselves. Maybe then, those "annoying" you with the real truth won't be so annoying anymore.
 
Wow, you really got your Underoos in a wad over my use of "relatively stable form of government"!
The existence of slavery or racism was/is not the result of anything that was or wasn't in the documents used or created by the Founding Fathers. It was the result of the moral intent and prevailing thoughts of the authors at that time. But it did have all the necessary provisions to change if it was the will of the people.
And the topic of the thread is the suitability of the documents underlying the issues dealt with by our Founding Father.
Even if it did take a civil war, slavery was abolished. Take a look around. There's plenty of slavery in the rest of the world that persists to this day for that matter.
 
Really want to get into this discussion friends. Since the NCGA and the UNC BOG have mandated the Foundations of American Democracy curriculum I've been working on it. I've got students reading five of the Federalist Papers, #s 9, 10 (The threat of factions), 29 (Second Amendment), 47 (Separation of Powers), and 51 (Checks and Balances) - (Open Access from The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, Avalon Project - The Federalist Papers ). Sure would love to discuss those five first if we could. All 85 of them amounts to some 180,000 words.
This is a good quick podcast discussion of them and the context in which they appeared.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS ON THE BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001r7sv
 
There has been a lot of talk lately about “original intent” vs. life today, particularly regarding what was and was not envisioned at the time. I thought it might be good, then, to explore original documents from the lens of both the “then” and the “now.” I read the Federalist Papers in college and thought that they might be a great place to start. With that in mind, I am going to post one of the federalist papers each day for as long as people are interested in discussing them. If it goes well, and we get through all 80, then we can move onto other suggested documents.
Great idea!
 
Really want to get into this discussion friends. Since the NCGA and the UNC BOG have mandated the Foundations of American Democracy curriculum I've been working on it. I've got students reading five of the Federalist Papers, #s 9, 10 (The threat of factions), 29 (Second Amendment), 47 (Separation of Powers), and 51 (Checks and Balances) - (Open Access from The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, Avalon Project - The Federalist Papers ). Sure would love to discuss those five first if we could. All 85 of them amounts to some 180,000 words.
This is a good quick podcast discussion of them and the context in which they appeared.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS ON THE BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001r7sv
That makes sense. I'd like to get through the first five-ten, if possible. At that point, if folks are still interested, and would like to skip around, we can - but I'm also interested in the philosophical side of the papers, which is why I value those early ones so much.
 
"AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. 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."

I think it is often easy to look at history differently than the present moment. Because we know the outcome, we forget how much uncertainty existed at the time. I choose the Federalist Papers in part because they outline future policy, but largely because they are, for me, the greatest philosophical treatise written about this country. It's clear from Hamilton's opening that there was a great deal of uncertainty about whether this project would work - of whether we as humans truly are capable of creating a government for the people, by the people, of the people, or whether we would rather simply be told what to do and how to act.
 
"Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy."

The above gets at that feeling of uncertainty - not only of "will this work," but also of "how do I know that I know that I, who strive to be both good and wise, know that I'm correct in my judgment?" There is value in that uncertainty, but I wonder how much the fear of being wrong keeps good people from action. This, I think, is one of the problems of the left/democrats at this time - and why, as snoop said in another thread, republicans are leading the national dialogue so well - there is no doubt from Trump and Musk that they are in the right, no questioning of consequences. In many ways, this makes things easier in the now, but at what cost for the future?

It also points to how propaganda, particularly in the 20th century, manipulated our founding fathers into heroes who could do no wrong, rather than a group of deeply flawed, but optimistic white men who recognized that their vision of what this country could be would, at times, fail - and perhaps be deemed a complete failure within their lifetimes. And who set up checks and balances, which are now being eroded, to keep that failure from occurring for as long as possible.
 
"A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

This is the paragraph that keeps me up at nights - It's also one that I find some hope. It's a reminder that people are people are people, and that the problems we face today are not unique to the political and social world, although the methods and tools have changed. We have always been fighting the desire for power for the sake of power; we will always be fighting that urge. Sometimes the pendulum swings that way too far, but it has, in the past, gone the other way. At the same time, attempts to have a more centralized government will lead to accusations of power and greed seeking, even when they are not - of being trickery at the expense of the people. This is the hard road that politicians must travel - no matter how good their intent, no matter how much they want to help the country, they will be accused of being self serving. And the danger of this is that people will (indeed have) become so distrustful that they simply view all politicians as greedy and self serving that they cannot distinguish the true all consuming greed of people like Trump and Musk from the rest - who got into politics because they truly did not want to make the world a better place. Trump, like all grifters, is very good at pretending to fight for the rights of others, while truly serving only his own self. And that, more often than not, leads to tyranny.
 

Federalist No. 2​

Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
Author: John Jay

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and wellbalanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.
 
Cont:

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
 
Back
Top