Federalist Paper No. 6

Hamilton begins his second Federalist Paper with a brief review of the “innumerable” ‘causes of hostility among nations’. He also makes the rather snarky comment that

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.

In other words, the idea of peace between separate or confederated states is a pipe dream.

I have to say, Hamilton was not the most optimistic guy. He had an unfailing lack of faith in people (and apparently, especially in women: ‘The influence which the bigotry of one female, the petulance of another, and the cabals of a third, had in the contemporary policy, ferments, and pacifications, of a considerable part of Europe, are topics that have been too often descanted upon not to be generally known.’). So, with this in mind, it’s not really surprising that he spends most of this Paper detailing historical evidence for the greed, vagaries and perfidies of people and states throughout history. He also rightly points out that it is not only statesmen who may determine a state’s peace, but the average citizen as well. He invokes recent (for him) history: Daniel Shays and his Regulators, noting, ‘If Shays had not been a DESPERATE DEBTOR, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war.’

I should also probably note that despite Hamilton’s misgivings about statesmen, he concluded the ideal form of government had represented all the interest groups, but maintained a hereditary monarch to decide policy. In Hamilton's opinion, this was impractical in the United States; nevertheless, the country should mimic this form of government as closely as possible. He proposed, therefore, to have a President and elected Senators for life (surprising, really, that TJ and Madison couldn’t stand him).

I confess that I misread the seventh and eighth paragraphs the first three times. I thought that Hamilton was arguing that despite all of this, however, there is still hope! (which should have been my first clue that I was mistaken). In actuality, he says that visionary men ‘stand ready to advocated the paradox of perpetual peace between the States’ (written eight years before Kant’s Perpetual Peace). They argue that ‘Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other’: the Enlightenment Era version of the ‘Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention.’

Hamilton counters that republics, even commercial republics, are still just as likely to get into wars. Commerce, instead of eliminating causes of war, simply provides other incentives: war as commerce by other means. As evidence, he cites Sparta, Athens, Rome, Carthage – ‘the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction’, Venice, Holland, Britain, Austria, Bourbon, France, England and France involved in Austria vs. Bourbon, etc. In essence, if separate, composed as neighbors, states will fight. Here, he doesn’t offer any explicit evidence that states won’t fight even if they are united (and in fact his mentions of North Carolina’s revolt, the ‘late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania’ and the insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts makes me wonder that states will become embroiled in violence no matter what), except to quote Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, l’Abbé de Mably:

NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

The quote sums up the Paper nicely, as Hamilton notes with his final line: “This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY,” which I must assume he addresses in the next Paper, as there are only the two on Dissensions between the States.

That Publius Guy (a word about the title)

I used to think that that the pen-name for the authors of the Federalist Papers was just a clever form of anonymity- dubbing themselves 'Publius', the voice of the concerned public. Not exactly. Hamilton, Madison and Jay didn’t just pull any authoritative-sounding Greek name out of a hat. Like most intellectuals of the day, they were at least passingly familiar with classical history. In fact, Publius was just another front in the PR war. In the Introduction to my copy of the Federalist Papers, Kesler writes:

[Hamilton] chose 'Publius' as the pseudonym, trumping his adversaries invocation of heroes of the late Roman republic (Brutus and Cato) with a reference to one of the founders and saviors of republican Rome- Publius Valerius Publicola, whose biography was paired with that of Solon in Plutarch's famous Parallel Lives. Solon, the democratic lawgiver of Athens, had lived to see his polity overthrown by a tyrant; but the Roman Publius firmly established his republic, which endured and expanded for centuries. Moreover, after making his laws, Solon had left Athens for ten years in order to avoid having to interpret his legislation. By contrast, Publius had remained in Rome in order to serve as consul, to improve (at a critical moment) the city's primitive republican laws, and to impart his own spirit of moderation, justice, and wisdom to the regime. What did this imply for the American Publius? At least this, that he wished to seize a fleeting moment favorable to constitution-making- when the wise and moderate men of the Federal Convention would have their greatest influence- in order to form a just and enduring republic in an extensive land.

So other than a nice history lesson, what does this mean for this blog? Why did I chose 'We Are Publius' as my title?

It certainly wasn't out of arrogance. I have no pretentions about being the next Madison. I can only dream of being half as good of a writer, and the number of important civic topics on which I am not entirely woefully ignorant is laughable. If the future of American republicanism is resting on my shoulders, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

Except, in a way, it is. I am an American citizen, and proud to be. I love my country. I think the 'American Experiment' is one of the most incredible achievements in human history, not because we always live up to our vision, but we constantly strive to. And we learn from our mistakes. We are a work in progress, and we're still young, but even 200 years later, we cannot be judged a failure. I hope we never are.

But inorder to ensure our success, we all need to be Publius. We need to serve as consuls (representatives, at all levels), improve our laws in the constant pursuit of justice tempered by mercy, and impart our own common-sense spirit of endeavor, of charity, of moderation and love of liberty.

And that's why I started this blog. This is my challenge to myself, and to others: to be a better citizen. Better informed, more thoughtful, more active, less complacent citizen, of America, and of the world. It won't be an easy task, and not one to be completed in a year, or two, or even a lifetime. But I'm not sure I can think of a better charge.

A Short History of the Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays (85 in total so get comfortable) written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, under the pen name 'Publius' in order to urge the ratification of the proposed Constitution. By the time the first Federalist Paper was published on October 27, 1787, the public debate was already over a month old, and the internal debate at the Constitutional Convention had begun over six months earlier.

Although addressed to the People of New York, the Federalist Papers were republished in other states and used by Federalists to persuade their respective states as well. The Federalist Papers did often need to address current particular concerns, but they followed the overall thesis stated in the first Paper.

Originally sent to amend the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Delegation (of which Madison was a part), with the aid of like-minded delegates (including Hamilton, delegate from New York), instead proposed replacing the Articles with a new, more centralized government. Members of the smaller states feared they would be overwhelmed by the economic and political power of Virginia and New York, as well as the growing Southern and Western territories, at first refused to discuss a closer union. However, eventually the idea of a federal government- with powers given to both the states and a stronger national government- emerged. This federated form of government was not only a departure from the contemporary government, federalism itself was also a radically different philosophy and style of governance, influenced by the writings of Locke and Hobbes, as well as the still recent Revolutionary War and the events that provoked it. The written Constitution comprised of a combination of their hopes, fears, and best guesses.

(For a history of the Constitutional Convention, read the excellent books The Great Rehearsal and Miracle at Philadelphia. For an explanation of federalism as both a philosophy and a style of governance check out CGS' overview of federalism.)

Not all of the delegates accepted the proposed Constitution and several refused to sign it. These delegates led the charges against ratification.

Although collectively known as the Anti-Federalists, the detractors of the Constitution listed several different complaints. The most common fear was that the executive of the national government would develop into a monarchy, or perhaps combine with the legislature into a tyrannical aristocracy. A Bill of Rights was seen by many (including George Mason, a Convention delegate, and Patrick Henry) as the only way to protect personal rights- essential to a people who had recently fought a war for ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, and its absence was a major obstacle to their support. Other objections included the acceptance of slavery into the Constitution- the infamous 3/5ths compromise, whereby slaves were counted towards representation in the House. This was a necessary compromise, as the southern states of South Carolina and Georgia absolutely wouldn’t have joined, but still a rather onerous one. Some felt that the size of the territory of the states would make governing impossible, and that that was the real reason for the failure of the Confederation, but that several smaller Confederacies might succeed.

The result was that not only did Hamilton (and Jay and Madison) have to prove that the Union was a viable form of government and better than the Articles, but that a change from the Articles was necessary. In order to address all of these issues, Hamilton laid out his thesis in 6 parts:

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 to the one
proposed, to the attainment of this object
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.

The first three subjects deal with the necessity of a Union, both for survival and the attainment of liberty and are covered in the first 36 Papers. The second three discuss the merits of the proposed Constitution, and make up the remainder of the Papers (37-85

Welcome

Welcome to We Are Publius, a blog on federalism and citizenship. I plan to have at least semi-regular posting, so please check back for new entries.

The majority of the content here (at least by volume) will focus on a discussion of the Federalist Papers, the defense of the US Constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. This blog was originally intended as a guide to the Papers, exclusively, but there seems to be enough occasional incidents in federalism to justify expanding its purpose.

A word as to why on earth I decided such a project as the Federalist Papers: because they are there. I work with a group called Citizens for Global Solutions. Federalism is a guiding principle of CGS, and the Papers are some of the definitive documents of federalism. Still, I've never read them, and I bet most other people haven't either, and probably for the same reason: all 85, when compiled in a book, number at well over 400 pages, and they are in Colonial-era English, which makes them both beautifully and archaically written, and thus not easily given to pleasure reading.

So here I am, and We Are.

For those of you who are more ambitious/adventurous, the Federalist Papers are posted in PDF format here, grouped by subject. For the truly geeky, you can buy your very own copy of the Papers on Amazon- I use the Signet Classic edition.