In this essay, Hamilton offers an introduction to The Federalist. He declares that he supports ratification of the Constitution and that he intends through a series of papers to give the reasons for his support. He lists the subjects that will be covered in the papers and then concludes with a brief introduction to the particular subject addressed by the next several papers: “the utility of the union to your political prosperity.”
Hamilton begins the essay with an appeal to the people’s sense of “philanthropy” by suggesting that the choice they are about to make will settle the “important question,” not simply of whether or not this particular Constitution would be ratified, but of “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.” He pleads with his fellow citizens to try to make their “choice” through a “judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good.”
However, most of the rest of the essay is quite pessimistic about the ability for human beings to make such untarnished judgments regarding how best to promote the public good. A truly impartial mode of deliberation, he concedes, “is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected.” After all, the proposed Constitution “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.” What is worse, “[a]mbition, 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.” And none of this is helped by the fact, Hamilton points out further, that both sides in the debate have demonstrated that they “hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts,” not by the soundness of their reasoning, but “by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.” Nevertheless, while admitting that no one but he can know for certain that he is as unbiased and committed to the public good as he claims—“[m]y motives must remain in the depository of my own breast”—he promises to offer arguments “open to all” so that they “may be judged of by all,” and to do so “at least … in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.”
Hamilton then announces his intention to cover the following six subjects in subsequent essays: (1) “the utility of the union to your political prosperity;” (2) “the insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve that union;” (3) “the necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object;” (4) “the conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government;” (5) “its analogy to your own state constitution;” and (6) “the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.”
Finally, he offers a segue to the next set of essays by positing that his fellow citizens face a stark choice between “adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of [the] Union.” Thus, he argues, it is important to begin by thoroughly considering “the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution." So it is to that subject that Publius turns next.
In Federalist 1, Hamilton demands that reason be the people’s guide in judging the new Constitution. Hamilton believes that it is possible for the thirteen states to establish a constitution with a strong federal government designed to protect and advance national interests. Seemingly, history vindicates Hamilton. Today, people celebrate the American Republic for having establishing the oldest written constitution in the world. The U.S. Constitution has “successfully” governed a differentiated mass of communities for over 200 years. What can be said about the success of American union in general?
ReplyDeleteWriting forty years after Hamilton, Tocqueville asserts that American union was not only possible but promising among the thirteen states. He ascribed American success to the widely shared values, customs, and traditions among Americans. Certainly, there were differences among the states and the people residing in them, as Hendrickson pointed out in Peace Pact. At the same time, however, there were many key common elements linking the states as one body politic. As Tocqueville observed, many Americans shared the same language, customs, traditions, and “almost common laws.” The sharing of common values and traditions help, not hurt, societies considering union reach democratic consensus. Such commonalities also assist in the effort of establishing a central government with sufficient power to direct national interests.
In addition, Tocqueville contends that Americans were already united geographically. Two vast oceans, for example, separated the young republic from the rest of the world. Shielded from the rest of the world, American had time to instill political traditions and adapt to the new system of government. In addition, Tocqueville discusses how rich and fertile soil promoted strong agricultural markets. Thus, to Tocqueville, the reason for the success of the U.S. Constitution is owed in part to shared American political traditions and in part to American situation and good fortune.
What is interesting about Hamilton is his cynicism about the ability of human beings to promote the public good would probably be validated if he was alive today. There is no deliberation. There is a lot of personal animosity between those that are running for office or those that oppose the office holders. Both sides of the debate only have the goal of winning elections and converting as many people as possible, with the least amount of deliberation. It is not by reasoning that they convert, but by the best sound bite. This is today, which seems a repeat of what Hamilton feared.
ReplyDelete