Federalist Papers

Author: Jay
Publisher:
Publication Date: 2004-01-01
Features: After having undeniable experience of the current incompetence of the federal government, we ask you to carefully consider a new constitution for the United States of America. The very question itself demonstrates its importance; for its consequences involve the survival of the Union, the safety and welfare of its constituent parts, and the fate of an empire that can be said to be the most remarkable in many respects in the world. It is often pointed out that there seems to be an important question left for our people to solve through their actions and examples: whether human society can truly establish a good government through careful thought and free choice, or whether they are forever destined to rely on chance and force to determine their political organization. If this statement is not entirely without reason, then we might naturally consider the critical situation we face as the moment to make this decision; from this perspective, if we choose the wrong role for ourselves, it should be regarded as the misfortune of all humankind. This idea would add a motive of concern for humanity to the motive of patriotism, thereby increasing the concern of all thoughtful and benevolent people for this event. If our choice depends on a wise assessment of our true interests and is not influenced by facts unrelated to the public interest, then we would be extremely fortunate. But this is something that is more to be fervently hoped for than seriously expected. The plan presented to us for consideration would affect too many private interests and reform too many local institutions, and therefore, in the discussion, it would inevitably involve matters unrelated to the merits of the plan and would stir up views, sentiments, and prejudices that are unfavorable to the search for truth. Among the great obstacles that the new constitution would inevitably encounter, it is easy to see the following: Every state has a certain class of people whose obvious interests lie in opposing any change, as those changes might reduce the power, privileges, and status of their positions in the state government; there is also another class of people, driven by abnormal ambitions, who either hope to expand their power during a time of national chaos or believe that, for them, a federal government divided into several parts would offer more opportunities for advancement than a unified government. However, I do not intend to elaborate on my views regarding the latter class of people. I am well aware that it is not realistic to indiscriminately attribute opposition (merely because their positions make them suspicious) to either interests or ambitions. Fairly speaking, we must admit that even those people can be motivated by justifiable purposes. Without a doubt, the majority of the opposition, whether expressed or yet to be expressed, even if it is not admirable, at least cannot be blamed, as it is a normal error of thought caused by ingrained jealousy and fear. There are indeed many reasons that can lead to biased judgments, and they are also very powerful, so that we often see intelligent and kind people taking both sides—right and wrong—in important social issues. If this situation is handled properly, it can serve as a lesson in moderation for those who are overly self-assured in any debate. In this regard, there is another noteworthy reason, which comes from the following consideration: We often cannot be certain whether those who support the truth are more influenced by purer principles than their opponents. Ambition, greed, personal enmity, partisan opposition, and many other motives more unworthy of praise can easily affect not only those who oppose the correct side of an issue but also those who support it. If even these motives for moderation do not exist, then nothing is more foolish than the intolerant spirit that has always characterized political parties. For politics, like religion, is equally absurd to force people to convert through fire and sword. The heresies of both are rarely eliminated by persecution. However, whatever these opinions may be considered to be, we already have sufficient signs to predict that in this discussion, the same situation that occurred in all previous discussions of major national issues will occur. Anger and malicious passions will surge like a flood. Judging from the behavior of opposing parties, we can conclude that they will jointly wish to prove the correctness of their views and will use fervent speeches and bitter invective to attract more converts. The wise and passionate support of the government's power and efficiency will be slandered as a love of autocratic power and an opposition to the principles of freedom. Excessive caution in protecting the rights of the people—this is usually an error of reason, not of emotion—will be called mere excuses and tricks, a stale bait to sacrifice the public good for personal fame. On the one hand, people will forget that jealousy often accompanies love, and the noble passion for freedom is easily influenced by narrow-minded skepticism. On the other hand, they will equally forget that the power of the government is an indispensable guarantee of freedom; its interests are inseparable; dangerous ambitions are often masked by the beautiful cloak of a passion for the rights of the people, rarely covered by the stern and efficient face of a resolute and effective government. History will teach us that the former is more likely to lead to autocracy than the latter; among those who overturned the charter of the republic, most rose to prominence by pandering to the people, beginning as demagogues and ending as autocrats.
Fellow countrymen, in the above discussion, I have noted all attempts to influence your decisions on extremely urgent matters of welfare by means of unfounded impressions from any quarter, and I have warned you against them. Without a doubt, you can also see from the general perspective of my discussion that it is not hostile to the new constitution. Yes, fellow countrymen, I admit that after carefully considering the new constitution, I am firmly convinced that it is beneficial for you to accept it. I believe it is the most reliable method for you to secure freedom, dignity, and happiness. I need not pretend to reserve anything. Once I have made up my mind, I will not adopt a cautious attitude to please you. I frankly acknowledge my beliefs and frankly state the reasons for these beliefs. My intentions are good, and I have no regard for ambiguity, but I do not wish to dwell too long on this subject. My motives must remain within my own breast. My arguments will be made public to all, and it will be for all to judge. At least these arguments are presented in a spirit that does not prejudice the truth. I intend to discuss in a series of essays the following interesting questions: the benefits of the Union to your political prosperity, the inadequacy of the current Confederation to maintain the Union, the necessity of maintaining a government at least as strong as the one proposed, the consistency of the new constitution with the true principles of a republic, the similarity of the new constitution to your state constitutions, and the further guarantees of the government, of freedom, and of property through the new constitution. In this discussion, I will do my best to provide satisfactory answers to all objections that may arise and may attract your attention. Some may think it redundant to argue for the benefits of the Union, as this point is undoubtedly well-remembered by the majority of the people in the states and it can be imagined that no one will oppose it. However, in reality, we have already heard private murmurs among those opposed to the new constitution in private circles: that the scope of thirteen states is too vast for any general system, and that we must rely on dividing the whole into independent confederacies. This statement is likely to gradually spread until there are enough supporters to openly endorse it. For those who can look ahead, there is nothing more evident than this: either accept the new constitution or split the Union. Therefore, it is useful to first analyze the benefits of the Union and the inevitable evils and dangers that the states would expose themselves to if the Union were split. Thus, this will be the topic of my next essay.