Federalist Papers Revisited #2

Now that I have completed my review of the Federalist Papers I am struck by a number of discoveries. First of all if anything can be said about the authors, particularly Alexander Hamilton, it is his absolute determination to achieve passage of this new Constitution, particularly in his own state of New York. He is distraught over the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the perilous state of the United States at this juncture. As a member of the Constitutional Convention himself, he is certainly conscious that the document is not perfect, nor could it be, but he doesn't doubt for an instant as to the necessity of it being adopted as soon as possible.

The authors clearly believed in a strong constitutional government, and the use of these papers today by those who are antigovernment or who have excessive distrust of government seems unwarranted. On the contrary, I believe these authors were very conscious of the limitations of the Constitution that was being proposed, and recognized that no one could possibly forsee what circumstances the future would hold. Thus over and over again they insisted that the federal government must have all the powers necessary to fulfill its obligations. The role of government was to pursue the happiness of its people.

The Federalist papers were written to advocate for the adoption of the new Constitution and they do that forcefully and without reservation. An example of this from Alexaznder Hamilton in Article 67 of the papers focuses on the presidency, and criticism that the Constitution made the President into more than a king with all sorts of royal prerogatives and powers. Hamilton refutes these critics point by point, carefully analyzing each relevant constitutional clause. In order to understand where he's coming from you need to understand the context of his arguments and his perspective. He supports ratification and opposes the critics he argues against. He does not share the concerns of the critics, but he is operating as a lawyer to show through the clauses of the document that their interpretation is not correct. I don't think this makes him a strict constructionist, it simply shows he will make use of every avenue to support his conviction that the Constitution must be adopted.

I want to mention some interesting points that seem to belie the position that conservatives often voice about these papers. For example the papers often argue that the federal government is less likely to abuse its powers than state governments. This hardly seems like an argument for states rights. In fact it vociferously mentions the need for states to give up rights in order that the federal government will have the ability to carry out its responsibilities.

The Federalist Papers go on to ridicule the governemnt of the Articles of Confederation and insist on the necessity of a strong federal government. They speak of the lack of respect accorded to our government by foreign powers, the inability to generate treaties that can or will be adhered to, and the inability of the government to have any sanctions for its laws or policies. The United States of America has essentially become a joke.

A number of additional points are made which deserve consideration. The authors highlight how many of those criticizing the constitution are promoting their own interests at the expense of the union. Hamilton in article 29 points out that government cannot function if we don't trust each other - we share the same ideals -why would we assume that our fellow citizens would want to harm our country and its citizenry? The militia needs to be under the control of the federal government. In article 31 he insists that government must have power to fulfill its obligations. State governments are at least as likely to encroach on federal government powers as the federal government would be to encroach on states. Madison adds in #44 that there is no way to know what the future will hold and what it will demand of government. Finally in Article 51, Hamilton or Madison notes that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary".

Another concern which is relevant to a contemporary issue is that of majority rule. Hamilton in #51 says "if the majority be united by a common interest the rights of the minority will be insecure", where the strong faction can unite and oppress the weaker anarchy may be said to reign. Yet Hamilton also says in #22 that we operate by majority rule and if that is thwarted we may be satisfied that nothing bad is being done but we forget how much good is not getting done. Clerarly the majority minority issue is a somewhat complicated one, but it seems likely that Hamilton would be deeply troubled by current senate rules which seem designed to obstruct the constitution's intent for the passage of Senate Bills, and specifically overturns the rule of the majority and substitutes instead rule by the minority.

Either Hamilton or Madison also say in #62 that government should pursue the happiness of the people and have a knowledge of how best to achieve that goal. An important ingredient for achieving that goal is a stable government, which is why six year terms for senators are required. Government needs continuity and legislators and presumably Presidents need to know what they are doing. Could there be some suggestion here from these authors regarding the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?

The following extended quote from Federalist Paper #45 by Madison is worth reproducing in terms of what it says about how the founding fathers perceived the new Constitution and the alleged danger to state governments from the powers that would be given to the new federal government:

"Having shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the governments of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of pover, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovreignty? We have heard ... that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, ... that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?.... the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued, and that no form of government.. has any value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object......
the more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderacy of the last (state gov'ts) than of the first (fed gov't).... the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members to despoil the general government of its authorities."

Lets be clear. The cry of states rights has always been a southern issue primarily because of slavery and later because of discrimination. Much of the South simply didn't like the laws of the union and didn't want to follow them. They would have no support from the founding fathers for this point of view, and they do a disservice to drag these giants and defenders of the Constitution into their long standing controversies. There is no indication that these founding fathers believed the constitution had solved every problem or should be interpreted in a very narrow fashion. In the final article, #85, Hamilton sums up his understanding of the meaning of this new Constitution: "I am persuaded that it is the best which our political situation, habits, and opinions will admit, and superior to any the revolution has produced...I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect men". Finally he says that a union of thirteen states "must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations. How can perfection spring from such materials"? Those who want to use and interpret the Constitution as if it were a biblical document handed down from on high are operating far from the ideals of our founding fathers.