This post begins a regular series of The Federalist Papers: A Modern Translation. Please note: the following is copyrighted material that cannot be reproduced without the permission of the contributor.
In the interest of getting these valuable works of genious available to as many Americans as possible, I have decided to “modernize” the language to make the Federalist Papers more reader-friendly to 21st Century Americans. But, like a true translation, I have been determined to stay true to the original meaning as communicated by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. This is not a “dumbed-down” rendition: it just is a nod towards the recognition that language does evolve over time. Making these works more accessible to the public will allow more people the option of reading and understanding the brilliant and timeless political philosophies which influenced the shaping of our country and our Constitution.
THE FEDERALIST: ADDRESSED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NUMBER IINTRODUCTION
We have recently experienced a failure in how our federal government functioned. Now you, the People, will be asked to consider a new Constitution for the United States of America. The importance of the subject speaks for itself: the result could mean the end of our union and this could threaten the safety and welfare of the states and localities therein. It has been often said that the people of this country seem to have the responsibility to decide, and to show others, whether it is possible for people to establish good government by choosing amongst themselves how it will work, rather than being beholden to a government that takes control of the people through accident or force. If this is true, then this generation may be the very one called upon to resolve the issue by dealing with our present crisis. If we make the wrong decision, it could very well be viewed as not just our misfortune, but through history, as the general misfortune of humankind.
That I mention the importance of our responsibility to do what is right, surely that will encourage all patriots who care for humankind to consider this very seriously. If we make our choice based on careful thought of our true interests, without distracting ourselves with things that are not associated with the common good, the results could be very happy indeed. The current plan for the new structure of the government affects many individual interests and many different localities, and we would do well not to clutter the discussion with issues that that don’t affect the main objective, or become bogged down with views, passions and prejudices that distract us from getting to the main truth: will this blueprint with which we are provided allow us to govern ourselves effectively, based on the consent of the people themselves?
One of the major problems facing us concerns certain men in every State who are resisting change based upon self-interest: they fear the loss of power or stature in the offices they hold in State government. Other men hope to further themselves by taking advantage of the confusion that they hope might ensue by a change in government. Or, these men might try to subvert progress into a stronger union because they hope to see themselves empowered more easily by a fractured and subdivided government.
I do not intend to dwell in these types of men too much, since I understand that it would be tricky for me to try to resolve the disagreement of any group of men who, just because they are in a particular position, might be inclined to be ambitious. We have to admit that even these type of men might have good intentions, and any opposition which springs from them, we should not blame and we may even respect, even if this opposition results from one’s personal fears or jealousies. There are many things that have the power to bias our judgment on this issue, and many men who are good and wise can be on the wrong or right side of an issue when it’s first presented. Being aware of this would encourage moderation for those who are so sure that they are right in any controversy. Another reason to be cautious comes from the knowledge that we’re not always sure that those who advocate what is right are doing so because they are pursuing interests that are any purer than those of their opponents. Ambition, stinginess, ill will, political party opposition, and many other negative motives can move those who support or oppose an issue. As if this weren’t enough to make us think carefully, nothing could be worse that the intolerance we are seeing coming from the political parties. Like religion, you can’t convert someone to another political view by using violence or force, and persecution will not change anyone even if they are wrong.
Yet, even knowing all of this, there’s every reason to believe that all these negatives will be evident in this discussion the same way that they’ve manifested themselves in all former great national discussions. We will see a great deal of anger and passionate feelings. From viewing those who oppose our position, we can only conclude that they are hoping to persuade people to their position by how loud and how bitter they can be. They are going to try to make our position look negative by concluding that an effective government must necessarily be despotic and hostile to liberty. They will say that the rights of the people are really not important to us, and that we only are declaring this so in order to get popular support for our plan, even if the support is at the expense of the common good. But remember, jealousy is often associated with unhealthy love, and those enthusiastic for liberty often suffer from guarded distrust. Some will forget that the main reason for government to exist is for the protection of liberty; carefully considered, government and liberty should not be separated. What might appear to be a desire for the rights of the people often proves to be a true desire for the power and ambition of men. The desire for a strong government does not tempt men quite so much to this sort of dangerous ambition. History teaches us that a concern for the strength of government offers less of a threat to liberty. History shows that most people who are responsible for undermining the liberty of republics start their careers by seducing the people. They start out as great speakers, manipulating the people with prejudice and emotion, but they end up as tyrants.”
Considering all I have written so far, I have been trying to put you, my fellow citizens, on your guard against anyone who might attempt to persuade you to a position on this very important issue: you must focus on truthful, credible evidence. They might even convince you that they are not completely against this new Constitution. I myself have decided after careful consideration that it is in your best interest, my countrymen, to adopt it. I am convinced this is the best decision you can make to preserve your liberty, your dignity and your happiness. I am not just telling you this; I tell you truly what I feel and I will tell you truthfully why I believe this. I will not be ambiguous, but I won’t confuse you either: my motives will remain with me. But my arguments will available to you all and you can all judge them. They will be presented to you in honor of truthfulness.
Here are the specific things I am going to discuss: (1) how the Union will enable you to be more politically empowered; (2) How our Union cannot survive under the present Confederation, (3) that we must have a government that is at least as strong as the one proposed if we are preserve the Union, (4) how our proposed Constitution is faithful to the principles of a republican (representative) government, (5) how the proposed federal government and Constitution is very like your state governments and constitutions and, (6) how adopting this proposal will add to the preservation of a government best equipped to protect your liberty and prosperity.
In these discussions I will try to respond to all objections which you might be considering.
Maybe it seems like a waste of time to present arguments to support the preservation of a union that already has the support of people in every State, and which appears at first glance to have no adversaries. But in fact we are already hearing the whispering from some corners of opponents to the new Constitution. They say that the thirteen States are too independent to be brought under one strong government and that the only way this will work will be for there to remain thirteen confederacies that are portions of a larger whole. No doubt this position will gain enough strength to where people will be openly advocating it. It might seem easier to support that position than to consider adopting a new Constitution or a break up of the Union. So first, let’s explore the advantages of that Union, and how dissolution of the Union might negatively affect the States. This will be the subject of my next address.
PUBLIUS [Hamilton]