Reviewing The Federalist Papers - No. 1
In which I review and annotate the founding principles of our society.
The Federalist Papers are a philosophical pillar of our society. They offer a firm foundation for American governance philosophy and a dialectic examination of our constitutional system. If the U.S. Constitution is the “what” of democratic governance protocols, then the Federalist Papers are the “why”.
And yet.
Who reads them?
Even as a governance and philosophy nerd, I have only skimmed them.
Despite re-inventing democratic governance principles, DAOs and web3 communities are often unaware that our forefathers have already explicated them.
In the cooperative scene, few have read this canon that lays out the principles of a cooperative, people’s government.
And for any communist readers out there, I’m confident that you will be impressed by the thoughtful consideration of the public good outlined in the papers.
As an aside, I was inspired to learn that Xerox PARC (the great computing lab of the 70s)1 was inspired by the Federalist Papers in their implementation of Dynamic Objects. See Alan Kay’s The Power of Context.
Without further ado, I present an abridged version of Federalist No. 1, with my commentary. I will be breaking up paragraphs for the purpose of digesting this colossal text one lofty statement at a time. I’ll be adding my commentary as footnotes, so that you may read the text straight through without commentary, if you wish.
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.2
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.3
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.4
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.5
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.6
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.7
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.8
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.9 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.10 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.11 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 OBJECT12
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.13
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.14
PUBLIUS.
You can find a totally unabridged version of Federalist No. 1 here. We’ll be looking at Federalist No. 2 next.
If you want to follow along, subscribe here:
They invented everything that we now think of as a computer, basically.
The Federalist Papers were written as a defense of a new proposal for a U.S. Constitution, following the failed Federal government established under the Articles of Confederation. The failure of the Articles is an interesting history in its own right and goes to show just how sensitive the balance of our government is. How remarkable that we had the opportunity to learn to govern ourselves through trial-and-error in such a short period.
Hamilton is saying here that all of history is watching America in this fateful moment. Will we convene as a country and, through reason and reflection, decide upon a constitution for ourselves? Or will we merely wait until some strong man comes through and decides for us, once again showing that government happens TO a people, not BY a people.
Basically he’s just saying “you must surely feel a sense of philanthropy (e.g. protection of the common good) after understanding that our fate is the fate of all mankind”.
One of the reasons I look up to the Federalist Papers so much is this sober look at human nature. “Yes, it would be nice if we all only considered the common good in the creation of our government, but that’s impossible. So what the hell do we do about it?” This isn’t Hamilton offering untested ideology from a position of power. He’s trying to build something that will actually work.
Pretty obvious point here. He’s just saying: “look, many opponents to our constitution will have their own interests in mind, and the new constitution would be bad for their careers.”
A lot of vitriolic arguments for/against the future of our state will be made by people who have the best intentions, and Hamilton believes it’s important to respect that they really do have the best intentions, even if they make errors.
Partisan vitriol is, unfortunately, America’s common heritage. It has been a part of our culture since before we had a constitution, and will likely be a part of our culture for many more decades or centuries, if we don’t do anything to change it.
Remember, America just came from despotic rule by a foreign government. The people are keenly aware of the “efficiencies” and “energy” of Government, and the harm that can cause. Hamilton is saying “Yes, but we need to wield that power for good if we are to survive!”
Hamilton is defending his opponents here. He’s saying: “look, stop the partisan bickering. The people who want to protect their rights do so out of a deep LOVE for their rights and liberties which must be understood.”
Hamilton is saying: The people who will take your rights away are probably not the people who are arguing for an efficient constitutional government. History shows us that the people who will take your rights away are often people who will argue for your rights to your face, and then snatch them from under you. (despots and tyrants)
Notice this term “energetic”. Hamilton uses it frequently. He believes there is a need for a sufficiently “energetic” government. Unpack this. What do you think he means? What are examples of energetic and unenergetic government? Why does he believe it’s important? We’ll continue to investigate as we read.
The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.
Look forward to next time!