Federalist Papers -- Translation of Famous Works

Author: Jay
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-01-01
Features: After gaining undeniable experience in the incompetence of the current 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 called the most remarkable in many aspects of the world.
It is often pointed out that there seems to be an important question left for our people to resolve through their actions and examples: whether human society can truly establish a good government through careful deliberation 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 merit, then we might reasonably consider the critical juncture we face as the moment for this decision; from this perspective, if we choose the wrong role for ourselves, it should be regarded as a misfortune for all of humanity. This idea would add a motivation for human concern beyond the impulse of patriotism, thereby increasing the interest of all thoughtful and benevolent individuals in this matter.
If our choice depends on a wise assessment of our true interests and is not misled by facts unrelated to the public good, 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 itself, 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: each state has a certain class of people whose obvious interest lies in opposing any change, as such changes might reduce their power, privileges, and status in 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, in a federal government divided into several parts, they have more opportunities to rise than if the states were united. However, I do not intend to elaborate on my views regarding the latter class. I am well aware that it is not realistic to indiscriminately attribute opposition (merely because their positions make them suspect) to either interest or ambition.
It is only fair that we must admit that even such people can be motivated by just causes. Without a doubt, the majority of opposition, whether expressed or yet to be expressed, even if it is not admirable, at least cannot be blamed—it is a natural error of thought caused by ingrained jealousy and fear. There are indeed many reasons that can lead to biased judgments, and they are very powerful, to the extent that we often see wise and good people, when dealing with important social issues, standing on both the right and the wrong sides. If this situation is handled properly, it can serve as a lesson in moderation for those who are overly self-assured in any debate.
Furthermore, there is another noteworthy reason, derived from the following consideration: we often cannot be certain whether those who support the truth are more influenced by pure principles than their opponents. Ambition, greed, private enmity, partisan opposition, and many other motives far less commendable than these 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, no matter how well-founded these opinions may be, we already have sufficient evidence to predict that in this discussion, the same situation as 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 hope to prove the correctness of their views, and will use fervent speeches and bitter invective to attract more converts. A wise and passionate support for the powers and efficiency of government will be slandered as a love for 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 dismissed as mere excuses and tricks, a stale bait to sacrifice the public good for personal gain.
On one hand, people will forget that jealousy often accompanies love, and the noble passion for freedom can easily be influenced by narrow-minded skepticism. On the other hand, they will equally forget that the power of government is essential to guarantee freedom; its interests are indivisible; and dangerous ambitions are often masked by the beautiful cloak of devotion to the rights of the people, rarely covered by the stern and efficient face of a government that firmly supports them. History will teach us that the former is far 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 tyrants.
Fellow countrymen, in the above discussion, I have noted all attempts to influence your decisions on extremely urgent matters of welfare with unfounded impressions from any direction, and I have warned you against them. Without a doubt, you can also see from the general perspective of my arguments that they are 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 adopt 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 appease you. I frankly acknowledge my beliefs and candidly state the reasons for them. My intentions are good, and I have no regard for ambiguity, yet I do not wish to dwell too long on this subject. My motives must remain within my own heart. 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 compromise 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 need to maintain 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 new constitution for maintaining that government, as well as for freedom and property. During this discussion, I will do my best to provide satisfactory answers to all objections that may arise and attract your attention.
Some may think it redundant to argue for the benefits of the Union, and this point is undoubtedly well-remembered by the majority of the people in the states, so it can be assumed that there will be no opposition. However, in fact, we have already heard private murmurs in the circles opposing the new constitution: that the scope of thirteen states is too vast for any general system, and that we must rely on dividing the whole into independent confederations. This argument is likely to gradually spread until it has enough supporters to openly acknowledge it. For those who can see the bigger picture, 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.