Federalist 1 Paraphrased
The Federalist Number 1 paraphrased into Modern English
by Alexander Hamilton, October 27, 1787.
To: the people of New York,
Now that you have experienced first-hand the inadequacy of the existing federal government [under the Articles of Confederation], you are being asked to consider a new Constitution for the United States. The subject itself is obviously important. The consequences of accepting or rejecting this Constitution will impact the very Union itself, the safety and well-being of the individual States making up the union, and the fate of a new country that, in many ways, is the most interesting empire in the world. Some have commented that it seems to have been arranged for the people of this country to determine the important question of whether groups of people are capable of creating a good government by reflecting and making deliberate choices -- or whether mankind is destined to depend on haphazard circumstance and coercive force to dictate their political organizations. If that is true, that it's up to the people of this country, then this situation might be considered the destined era in which that decision will be made. If we make the wrong decision, it could very well be the universal misfortune of all mankind.
Thus, it isn't just patriotism at stake, but charity for the world which increases the anxiety that all good and thoughtful men must feel about this decision. It will be a fortunate blessing if we make that decision based on a prudent evaluation of what is truly best for us, uncomplicated and unbiased by other considerations that have nothing to do with what's best for the people [such as purely political designs]. But that's probably asking too much. The Constitutional plan we've come up with affects too many specific interests, and dramatically changes too many state organizations, so it's natural that in discussing whether or not to approve it, all kinds of side issues not directly related to the merits of the Constitution will come up with various opinions, fervor, and prejudices that will cloud the real issues at stake.
One of the biggest challenges that this new Constitution will have to overcome is the kind of people in every State who resist any kind of change that might decrease the authority, financial compensation, and importance of the particular office they hold in their own State. Another challenge is the ambition of other men who will see a way of increasing their own importance by keeping the country confused, or see a way to elevate themselves by keeping the country divided into separate confederate empires rather than uniting together.
But I don't want to dwell on those kinds of things. It wouldn't be right to dismiss the opposition of a specific group of men as ambitious or having a conflict of interest simply because their role puts them in a suspicious light. I have to admit that even men in those roles might have pure and honorable motives. In fact, much of the opposition we're already seeing comes from different sources -- sources that are blameless, if not actually respectable. They are objections from honest minds that have been misguided by narrow jealousies and fears. There are so many and such persuasive reasons that cause people to miss the real issue that we often see wise and good men on the wrong side of major issues impacting society as often as the right side. If we were to study this phenomenon, it would serve as a lesson in moderation for anyone who is convinced of his rightness in any controversy. Another reason for caution is that we have no way of being sure that those who advocate truth are influenced by principles that are any purer than those of their antagonists. Personal ambition, greed, individual hostility, opposition due to party politics, and other equally low motives might be at work in people on either side of any issue. As if these considerations aren't enough to make us cautious, there's nothing more reckless than the spirit of intolerance that sometimes characterizes political parties. In politics as well as religion, it's absurd to try to win converts through violence and intimidation. Wrong ideas in either one can't be fixed with persecution.
Those opposing views might seem legitimate, but we already have indications that it will be a battle, just like it is with other important national issues. There will be all kinds of angry and destructive arguments vented on the public. Judging from our previous experience with the opposing parties, we expect them to try to convince the people that their view is the right one, and to try to win converts with loud outbursts and bitter accusations. They will denounce reasonable enthusiasm for a strong and efficient government as something characteristic of those who love tyranny and hate liberty. They will misrepresent a dread of compromising the rights of the people, which is usually a fault of the mind rather than the emotions, as insincere and phony -- as if it's just telling the people what they want to hear for the sake of popularity. On one hand, people won't remember that love always dreads anything that may cause harm, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty tends to be combined with a spirit of suspicious distrust. On the other hand, people won't remember that a strong government is essential to guarantee liberty. Rational reflection will observe that both liberty and a strong government work together and cannot be separated. But it's easier to hide dangerous ambition behind popular zeal for individual rights than behind a forbidding appearance of zeal for a firm and efficient government. History shows that fervor for liberty introduces tyranny more often than fervor for solid government. Of all the tyrants who have destroyed the liberties of republics, most began by wooing the people with radical talk about ending tyranny.
In the points I've just brought up, my intent was to put you, my fellow citizens, on your guard against all attempts from any group to influence you in this decision that is so urgently important to your own welfare. Your decision should be based solely on the truth. It should be obvious to you that I lean towards supporting the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I admit that I've given the issue a lot of thought and I firmly believe that it is in your best interests to approve it. I think this is the best way to guarantee your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I'm not going to pretend to have sentiments that I don't really feel. I'm not going to pretend to mull over and deliberate over a decision that I've already made. I frankly admit my convictions, and I will freely explain the reasons why I am convinced. Being aware of your own good intentions means you aren't going to be vague about explaining them. But I'm not going to go on and on about my intentions. My motives are not relevant. But my rationale is open to everyone, and anyone who likes may determine whether my reasons are sound or not. If nothing else, my arguments are offered in a spirit that honors truth.
I'm going to write a series of articles on the following specific topics:
- How useful a union will be for your political prosperity
- How insufficient the Articles of Confederation are to preserve that union
- How necessary a government at least as ambitious as the one we propose will be to preserve the union
- How the proposed Constitution conforms to the true principles of Republican government
- a comparison of the proposed Constitution to your own New York state constitution
- How adopting the new Constitution will protect a Republican government, as well as protecting your liberty and your property.
During the discussion promoted in these articles, I will try to address all the objections that arise and seem worthy of your attention.
Is it unnecessary to make arguments proving the usefulness of the union? Its usefulness seems to be confirmed in the hearts of many, many people in every state, and it might seem like that's a sentiment that no one questions. But the fact is, we're already hearing whispers in private circles from people who oppose the new Constitution. They say that the thirteen states are too vast for any single government to work, and what's needed are separate confederacies, or separate regions. That idea will probably be spread all over the place until it's widely accepted enough to get sufficient votes against ratifying the Constitution. But those who can see the larger picture realize that there are only two options: either adopt the new Constitution, or break up the union. So the best place to begin is to consider the advantages of having a union, and to look at the known disadvantages and likely risks that every state will face by dissolving the union. That will be the subject of my next article.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, January-February 2019
All Federalist Paper paraphrases
by Alexander Hamilton, October 27, 1787.
To: the people of New York,
Now that you have experienced first-hand the inadequacy of the existing federal government [under the Articles of Confederation], you are being asked to consider a new Constitution for the United States. The subject itself is obviously important. The consequences of accepting or rejecting this Constitution will impact the very Union itself, the safety and well-being of the individual States making up the union, and the fate of a new country that, in many ways, is the most interesting empire in the world. Some have commented that it seems to have been arranged for the people of this country to determine the important question of whether groups of people are capable of creating a good government by reflecting and making deliberate choices -- or whether mankind is destined to depend on haphazard circumstance and coercive force to dictate their political organizations. If that is true, that it's up to the people of this country, then this situation might be considered the destined era in which that decision will be made. If we make the wrong decision, it could very well be the universal misfortune of all mankind.
Thus, it isn't just patriotism at stake, but charity for the world which increases the anxiety that all good and thoughtful men must feel about this decision. It will be a fortunate blessing if we make that decision based on a prudent evaluation of what is truly best for us, uncomplicated and unbiased by other considerations that have nothing to do with what's best for the people [such as purely political designs]. But that's probably asking too much. The Constitutional plan we've come up with affects too many specific interests, and dramatically changes too many state organizations, so it's natural that in discussing whether or not to approve it, all kinds of side issues not directly related to the merits of the Constitution will come up with various opinions, fervor, and prejudices that will cloud the real issues at stake.
One of the biggest challenges that this new Constitution will have to overcome is the kind of people in every State who resist any kind of change that might decrease the authority, financial compensation, and importance of the particular office they hold in their own State. Another challenge is the ambition of other men who will see a way of increasing their own importance by keeping the country confused, or see a way to elevate themselves by keeping the country divided into separate confederate empires rather than uniting together.
But I don't want to dwell on those kinds of things. It wouldn't be right to dismiss the opposition of a specific group of men as ambitious or having a conflict of interest simply because their role puts them in a suspicious light. I have to admit that even men in those roles might have pure and honorable motives. In fact, much of the opposition we're already seeing comes from different sources -- sources that are blameless, if not actually respectable. They are objections from honest minds that have been misguided by narrow jealousies and fears. There are so many and such persuasive reasons that cause people to miss the real issue that we often see wise and good men on the wrong side of major issues impacting society as often as the right side. If we were to study this phenomenon, it would serve as a lesson in moderation for anyone who is convinced of his rightness in any controversy. Another reason for caution is that we have no way of being sure that those who advocate truth are influenced by principles that are any purer than those of their antagonists. Personal ambition, greed, individual hostility, opposition due to party politics, and other equally low motives might be at work in people on either side of any issue. As if these considerations aren't enough to make us cautious, there's nothing more reckless than the spirit of intolerance that sometimes characterizes political parties. In politics as well as religion, it's absurd to try to win converts through violence and intimidation. Wrong ideas in either one can't be fixed with persecution.
Those opposing views might seem legitimate, but we already have indications that it will be a battle, just like it is with other important national issues. There will be all kinds of angry and destructive arguments vented on the public. Judging from our previous experience with the opposing parties, we expect them to try to convince the people that their view is the right one, and to try to win converts with loud outbursts and bitter accusations. They will denounce reasonable enthusiasm for a strong and efficient government as something characteristic of those who love tyranny and hate liberty. They will misrepresent a dread of compromising the rights of the people, which is usually a fault of the mind rather than the emotions, as insincere and phony -- as if it's just telling the people what they want to hear for the sake of popularity. On one hand, people won't remember that love always dreads anything that may cause harm, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty tends to be combined with a spirit of suspicious distrust. On the other hand, people won't remember that a strong government is essential to guarantee liberty. Rational reflection will observe that both liberty and a strong government work together and cannot be separated. But it's easier to hide dangerous ambition behind popular zeal for individual rights than behind a forbidding appearance of zeal for a firm and efficient government. History shows that fervor for liberty introduces tyranny more often than fervor for solid government. Of all the tyrants who have destroyed the liberties of republics, most began by wooing the people with radical talk about ending tyranny.
In the points I've just brought up, my intent was to put you, my fellow citizens, on your guard against all attempts from any group to influence you in this decision that is so urgently important to your own welfare. Your decision should be based solely on the truth. It should be obvious to you that I lean towards supporting the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I admit that I've given the issue a lot of thought and I firmly believe that it is in your best interests to approve it. I think this is the best way to guarantee your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I'm not going to pretend to have sentiments that I don't really feel. I'm not going to pretend to mull over and deliberate over a decision that I've already made. I frankly admit my convictions, and I will freely explain the reasons why I am convinced. Being aware of your own good intentions means you aren't going to be vague about explaining them. But I'm not going to go on and on about my intentions. My motives are not relevant. But my rationale is open to everyone, and anyone who likes may determine whether my reasons are sound or not. If nothing else, my arguments are offered in a spirit that honors truth.
I'm going to write a series of articles on the following specific topics:
- How useful a union will be for your political prosperity
- How insufficient the Articles of Confederation are to preserve that union
- How necessary a government at least as ambitious as the one we propose will be to preserve the union
- How the proposed Constitution conforms to the true principles of Republican government
- a comparison of the proposed Constitution to your own New York state constitution
- How adopting the new Constitution will protect a Republican government, as well as protecting your liberty and your property.
During the discussion promoted in these articles, I will try to address all the objections that arise and seem worthy of your attention.
Is it unnecessary to make arguments proving the usefulness of the union? Its usefulness seems to be confirmed in the hearts of many, many people in every state, and it might seem like that's a sentiment that no one questions. But the fact is, we're already hearing whispers in private circles from people who oppose the new Constitution. They say that the thirteen states are too vast for any single government to work, and what's needed are separate confederacies, or separate regions. That idea will probably be spread all over the place until it's widely accepted enough to get sufficient votes against ratifying the Constitution. But those who can see the larger picture realize that there are only two options: either adopt the new Constitution, or break up the union. So the best place to begin is to consider the advantages of having a union, and to look at the known disadvantages and likely risks that every state will face by dissolving the union. That will be the subject of my next article.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, January-February 2019
All Federalist Paper paraphrases
Comments
Post a Comment