Federalist 15 Paraphrased
Federalist Number 15: The Old Articles of Confederation Aren't Sufficient to Preserve the Union
One of the more frequently cited Federalist Papers.
by Alexander Hamilton
To: the people of New York,
In the last few Federalist Papers, my fellow citizens, I tried to show you clearly and conclusively how important the Union is to your political safety and happiness. I explained the confusion of dangers you might be exposed to if the sacred knot that binds the people of America together were allowed to be divided or broken apart by jealousy or deceit because of ambition or greed. In a following Federalist Paper, I will further confirm the facts and arguments of this Paper, which haven't been noticed before now. If this material seems tedious or boring at times, remember that you're seeking information about the most pivotal subject that a free people can think about, that the subject itself is immense, and that the subject has been further complicated by the misconceptions and fallacies that have been strewn along the way. My goal is to bring clarity as briefly as possible without sacrificing efficiency in the attempt.
As I proceed with my plan for discussing this topic, my next point to examine is that "the Articles of Confederation aren't sufficient to preserve the union." You might wonder why I even need to prove this, since it's not something that anyone doubts or debates. Men of all classes agree and feel that this is true. Even those who are opposed to the Constitution admit it in substance, and those who support the Constitution agree as well. However much they may disagree on certain points, they seem to agree that there are some considerable flaws in the Articles, and something needs to be done to prevent imminent anarchy. It's no longer a matter of speculation. The general population senses it, and the men whose misguided policies brought us to this place are forced to reluctantly face the reality that the intelligent supporters of the Union were right when they pointed out certain defects in the Articles of Confederation.
We can correctly say that we've reached the final stage of national humiliation. There's not much of anything that can wound a nation's pride or degrade an independent country that we aren't currently experiencing. There are commitments that we, as respectable men, should be meeting, but, to our shame, we are failing in them. We are in debt to foreigners, and even to our own citizens, because of the war to earn our very political existence. We still have no way to pay those debts back. We have valuable territories and settlements that are currently in the possession of a foreign country which they agreed to surrender back to us by treaty a long time ago. But they're violating our rights by keeping them unfairly, and we're in no condition to fight to get them back, or even to officially denounce them for it. The Union has no troops, no treasury, and no government. We can't even object with dignity. Before we can do that, we need to remove the accusation in that same treaty against our good faith. We are entitled by contract to navigate the Mississippi River that flows right through our own land, but Spain won't allow it. Having good credit as a country in time of public danger is a great resource, but we seem to have given up on our national reputation as a lost cause. Commerce is indispensable to a country's national wealth, but ours is at its lowest point ever. Being respected by foreigners is a strong deterrent against foreign invasion, but our current government is so inefficient that there is no means for them to negotiate with us. Our ambassadors overseas are just for show, they have no real authority. The drastic decreasing of our land value is a national grief, but the price of land with improvements in some parts of the country is lower than it should be when compared with the huge tracts of waste land for sale. The only explanation for it is a lack of public and private confidence in our finances. This lack of trust is alarmingly rampant among all ranks of people, and that tends to depreciate all kinds of property. Private credit is a great help and support to industry, but the ability to lend and borrow money is severely limited, and not because there's no money, but because there's no confidence that it will ever be paid back. Continuing this list will be neither enjoyable nor instructive, but the national unrest, poverty, and insignificance of a community as blessed with natural advantages as ours is a symptom of our public tragedy.
This is the sad state we've been brought to by the advice of those who want to prevent us from adopting the proposed Constitution. They aren't satisfied with bringing us to the brink of a cliff; they seem determined to plunge us into the abyss waiting at the bottom. My countrymen, I implore you by every motive that should motivate an enlightened populace: let's take a firm stand for our safety, our peace, our dignity, our reputation. Let's break free from the fatal spell that has seduced us away from the paths of happiness and prosperity.
As we've said before, the facts are so obvious that nobody denies that there are flaws in our current Articles of Confederation. But even though the enemies of federal government admit the weakness of the current system, why are they so strongly opposed to the one remedy that will give us a chance of success? They admit that our government is completely lacking in power, but they don't want to provide it with the authority required to give it power. They continue to fight for things that are conflicting and irreconcilable. They want to increase federal authority without any decrease in State authority. They want the Union to be sovereign, while the States remain completely independent. In other words, they're blindly devoted to the political monstrosity of a sovereign power operating within another sovereign power. Apparently, we need to be blatant about the flaws of the Articles of Confederation in order to show that the afflictions we're experiencing don't come from minor omissions or slight imperfections -- they're the result of foundational flaws in the structure of the Articles. The only way to fix it is to change the fundamental principles and framework.
The major and primary weakness in the construction of the Articles of Confederation is the difference between legislation of states collectively, and legislation of the individual states. This difference doesn't affect all the powers delegated to the federal government , but it pervades enough of them to influence the efficiency of the rest of the powers. Except for making appointments, the United States has a vague privilege of requesting men or funds, but they are not authorized to raise up either one because of regulations regarding individual citizens. As a result, the laws are constitutionally binding on the States, which gives the federal government authority in theory -- but in practice, those laws end up as mere recommendations that States can choose to follow or disregard.
It's a remarkable example of the fickleness of the human mind that, even after all the warnings we've had through first-hand experience, there are still men who object to the new Constitution because it departs from a practice that was found to be troublesome in the old Articles, a practice that appears to be plainly incompatible with the idea of government -- in other words, a practice that would have to be enforced with violence and force instead of the gentle influence of the law.
It's not illogical or unwise for independent nations to form a league or alliance for a specific purpose which is clearly defined in a treaty that stipulates how long, the exact location, specific circumstance, and precise quantity. Nothing is left to be decided later, and the good faith of all parties ensures that the treaty will be acted out accurately. Agreements like this exist between all civilized countries, depending on the fluctuations of peace and war, compliance or dissent, however the interests or spirit of the treaty-making countries decide. In the early 1700's there was a fanatical passion for these kinds of treaties in Europe. The politicians of the day hoped for certain benefits, although they never materialized. Their goal was to equalize the balance of power and bring a lasting peace to Europe. Although they tried every kind of negotiation and formed triple and even quadruple alliances, the alliances broke up almost as soon as they were formed. It was a hard lesson to learn that treaties based on nothing beyond good faith can't be depended on, and alliances that place the whims of current interests or spirit above the general considerations of peace and justice won't last long.
If all the different States want to relate to each other similarly, like individual countries forming alliances with each other, and forget about an elected body overseeing their transactions, that could be dangerous. It would carry all the troubles that were just mentioned -- but at least it would be consistent and feasible. If we just abandon all ideas about creating a federal government, we would simply be allied States, alternating between being friends and enemies with each other, depending on the various jealousies, rivalries, and influences from the intrigues of foreign countries.
But what if we don't want to be put in that dangerous situation? If we want to keep the plan of a federal government that acts as an overseer under the direction of a collective assembly, we have to include elements into the design that define the difference between a government and a league of alliances, and we must allow that government to have authority over the citizens, which is the only real thing a government can have authority over.
It's appropriate for a government to have the authority to make laws. A law carries the implication that there will be some way to enforce it. If there's no penalty or punishment for those who don't comply, then the law amounts to little more than a suggestion. Punishment or penalty can only be inflicted in two ways: by a legal court, or by a military. Enforcement has to be coerced by either a judicial system or with weapons. A judicial system only applies to individuals; a military has to be employed against political bodies, or communities, or States. The Articles of Confederation have no provision for a federal judicial system to enforce federal laws. Sentences might be threatened against those who don't do their duty, but the sentences can only be carried out with violence. In an organization where the collective authority is spread among the individual members or States, every violation of the laws could result in a war. Military force will be the only means to ensure civil obedience. That kind of situation hardly deserves to be called a government, and no reasonable person would willingly commit his happiness to it.
At one time we were told that States wouldn't violate the regulations of the federal authorities because a sense of common interest would motivate the individual States to comply with the constitutional requirements of the federal government. Hearing that same thing from opponents of the Constitution sounds ludicrous today when we've learned our lesson from experience. It doesn't account for the reality of human nature, which motivates all human conduct, and makes the establishment of a civil authority necessary in the first place. Why set up a government at all? Because the spirit of men will not comply with the requirements of reason and justice unless compelled to. Have we observed that men in groups behave with more decency or fair-mindedness than individuals? No; in fact, everyone who has accurately observed mankind has seen the opposite, and this is for obvious reasons. Men in groups are less concerned about damaging their reputation because any blame for a bad action can be spread among the group rather than falling on a single individual. A divisive spirit is more apt to mix its bitterness in the discussion of any group, and will cause the people making up the group to rush into all kinds of indecent actions and extremes that each one would be ashamed to do individually.
Besides all of this, it's part of the nature of sovereign power to desire control. It makes those who exercise sovereign power tend to object to all external attempts to restrain it or influence what it does. This same spirit is responsible for the fact that, in every political group formed around a common interest, there will be a curious tendency in the lesser entities to veer off from the center of the group's purpose. This tendency has an obvious explanation: it has its roots in the love of power. Power that's controlled or limited is always opposed to whichever authority is doing the controlling or limiting. This simple observation shows that there's no reason to expect that the people entrusted with administering the affairs of the different members of a group [such as individual States] will always be cheerfully willing to carry out the laws or decrees of the superior authority with an unbiased concern for the benefit of the general public. In fact, human nature means that the opposite is to be expected.
Therefore, if the rules of the federal government can't be carried out without interference from the individual State administrations, there's not much hope of them being carried out at all. The leaders of the individual States, whether they have a Constitutional right or not, will decide for themselves whether they want to comply with the rules. They'll consider whether compliance is in their best interests or coincides with their own goals, and what benefits or inconveniences would be associated if they comply. This is just what will happen. Those State leaders won't have the benefit of the information and national reasons for creating the law, and without that knowledge which is essential to make the correct decision, they'll act on their own local interests and with distrust towards the intent of the federal law. That can hardly make their decision the correct one. And this same decision-making process will go on multiple times within however many States are in the Union. Carrying out plans that have been designed by representatives from the entire country will depend on the judgment of uninformed and biased opinions of each individual State. Those who have experienced the proceedings of group meetings have seen how difficult it is to get everyone to agree to any harmonious conclusion on any important point when there's no exterior pressure from circumstances. Imagine how impossible it will be to get various assemblies in the different States to cooperate with the same opinions and actions when they're consulting at different times, in different places, and with their own different ideas about the issue.
Under the Articles of Confederation, it requires thirteen different sovereign States to agree before any important measure from the federal government can be carried out. We predicted it would be difficult to get all of them to agree on anything, and we were correct. Laws that the federal government passed have not been carried out. The failures of the States to comply have slowly developed to such an extreme that it has halted the workings of the national government and brought them to an absolute standstill. Right now Congress barely has the means to maintain any administrative framework until the States have time to ratify a more solid replacement for the Articles, which are merely the shadow of a federal government. Things didn't become this desperate all at once. The causes we've already mentioned only produced unequal and irregular compliance at first with what the Union requested. Some States claimed they lacked the means to comply, and that served as an example and temptation for other States that had the means to comply. Why should they have to do more than other States who are on the same political journey? Why should they volunteer to carry more than their fair share of the burden? The selfishness of human nature couldn't resist this temptation. Even farsighted men who could anticipate the consequences that would result, were unable to resist. Each State gave in to the persuasive temptation of their own immediate advantage or convenience and, one by one, withdrew its support, and now the frail, unstable structure of government seems like it's about to fall in on our heads and crush us under its ruins.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, April 2020
All Federalist Paper paraphrases
One of the more frequently cited Federalist Papers.
by Alexander Hamilton
To: the people of New York,
In the last few Federalist Papers, my fellow citizens, I tried to show you clearly and conclusively how important the Union is to your political safety and happiness. I explained the confusion of dangers you might be exposed to if the sacred knot that binds the people of America together were allowed to be divided or broken apart by jealousy or deceit because of ambition or greed. In a following Federalist Paper, I will further confirm the facts and arguments of this Paper, which haven't been noticed before now. If this material seems tedious or boring at times, remember that you're seeking information about the most pivotal subject that a free people can think about, that the subject itself is immense, and that the subject has been further complicated by the misconceptions and fallacies that have been strewn along the way. My goal is to bring clarity as briefly as possible without sacrificing efficiency in the attempt.
As I proceed with my plan for discussing this topic, my next point to examine is that "the Articles of Confederation aren't sufficient to preserve the union." You might wonder why I even need to prove this, since it's not something that anyone doubts or debates. Men of all classes agree and feel that this is true. Even those who are opposed to the Constitution admit it in substance, and those who support the Constitution agree as well. However much they may disagree on certain points, they seem to agree that there are some considerable flaws in the Articles, and something needs to be done to prevent imminent anarchy. It's no longer a matter of speculation. The general population senses it, and the men whose misguided policies brought us to this place are forced to reluctantly face the reality that the intelligent supporters of the Union were right when they pointed out certain defects in the Articles of Confederation.
We can correctly say that we've reached the final stage of national humiliation. There's not much of anything that can wound a nation's pride or degrade an independent country that we aren't currently experiencing. There are commitments that we, as respectable men, should be meeting, but, to our shame, we are failing in them. We are in debt to foreigners, and even to our own citizens, because of the war to earn our very political existence. We still have no way to pay those debts back. We have valuable territories and settlements that are currently in the possession of a foreign country which they agreed to surrender back to us by treaty a long time ago. But they're violating our rights by keeping them unfairly, and we're in no condition to fight to get them back, or even to officially denounce them for it. The Union has no troops, no treasury, and no government. We can't even object with dignity. Before we can do that, we need to remove the accusation in that same treaty against our good faith. We are entitled by contract to navigate the Mississippi River that flows right through our own land, but Spain won't allow it. Having good credit as a country in time of public danger is a great resource, but we seem to have given up on our national reputation as a lost cause. Commerce is indispensable to a country's national wealth, but ours is at its lowest point ever. Being respected by foreigners is a strong deterrent against foreign invasion, but our current government is so inefficient that there is no means for them to negotiate with us. Our ambassadors overseas are just for show, they have no real authority. The drastic decreasing of our land value is a national grief, but the price of land with improvements in some parts of the country is lower than it should be when compared with the huge tracts of waste land for sale. The only explanation for it is a lack of public and private confidence in our finances. This lack of trust is alarmingly rampant among all ranks of people, and that tends to depreciate all kinds of property. Private credit is a great help and support to industry, but the ability to lend and borrow money is severely limited, and not because there's no money, but because there's no confidence that it will ever be paid back. Continuing this list will be neither enjoyable nor instructive, but the national unrest, poverty, and insignificance of a community as blessed with natural advantages as ours is a symptom of our public tragedy.
This is the sad state we've been brought to by the advice of those who want to prevent us from adopting the proposed Constitution. They aren't satisfied with bringing us to the brink of a cliff; they seem determined to plunge us into the abyss waiting at the bottom. My countrymen, I implore you by every motive that should motivate an enlightened populace: let's take a firm stand for our safety, our peace, our dignity, our reputation. Let's break free from the fatal spell that has seduced us away from the paths of happiness and prosperity.
As we've said before, the facts are so obvious that nobody denies that there are flaws in our current Articles of Confederation. But even though the enemies of federal government admit the weakness of the current system, why are they so strongly opposed to the one remedy that will give us a chance of success? They admit that our government is completely lacking in power, but they don't want to provide it with the authority required to give it power. They continue to fight for things that are conflicting and irreconcilable. They want to increase federal authority without any decrease in State authority. They want the Union to be sovereign, while the States remain completely independent. In other words, they're blindly devoted to the political monstrosity of a sovereign power operating within another sovereign power. Apparently, we need to be blatant about the flaws of the Articles of Confederation in order to show that the afflictions we're experiencing don't come from minor omissions or slight imperfections -- they're the result of foundational flaws in the structure of the Articles. The only way to fix it is to change the fundamental principles and framework.
The major and primary weakness in the construction of the Articles of Confederation is the difference between legislation of states collectively, and legislation of the individual states. This difference doesn't affect all the powers delegated to the federal government , but it pervades enough of them to influence the efficiency of the rest of the powers. Except for making appointments, the United States has a vague privilege of requesting men or funds, but they are not authorized to raise up either one because of regulations regarding individual citizens. As a result, the laws are constitutionally binding on the States, which gives the federal government authority in theory -- but in practice, those laws end up as mere recommendations that States can choose to follow or disregard.
It's a remarkable example of the fickleness of the human mind that, even after all the warnings we've had through first-hand experience, there are still men who object to the new Constitution because it departs from a practice that was found to be troublesome in the old Articles, a practice that appears to be plainly incompatible with the idea of government -- in other words, a practice that would have to be enforced with violence and force instead of the gentle influence of the law.
It's not illogical or unwise for independent nations to form a league or alliance for a specific purpose which is clearly defined in a treaty that stipulates how long, the exact location, specific circumstance, and precise quantity. Nothing is left to be decided later, and the good faith of all parties ensures that the treaty will be acted out accurately. Agreements like this exist between all civilized countries, depending on the fluctuations of peace and war, compliance or dissent, however the interests or spirit of the treaty-making countries decide. In the early 1700's there was a fanatical passion for these kinds of treaties in Europe. The politicians of the day hoped for certain benefits, although they never materialized. Their goal was to equalize the balance of power and bring a lasting peace to Europe. Although they tried every kind of negotiation and formed triple and even quadruple alliances, the alliances broke up almost as soon as they were formed. It was a hard lesson to learn that treaties based on nothing beyond good faith can't be depended on, and alliances that place the whims of current interests or spirit above the general considerations of peace and justice won't last long.
If all the different States want to relate to each other similarly, like individual countries forming alliances with each other, and forget about an elected body overseeing their transactions, that could be dangerous. It would carry all the troubles that were just mentioned -- but at least it would be consistent and feasible. If we just abandon all ideas about creating a federal government, we would simply be allied States, alternating between being friends and enemies with each other, depending on the various jealousies, rivalries, and influences from the intrigues of foreign countries.
But what if we don't want to be put in that dangerous situation? If we want to keep the plan of a federal government that acts as an overseer under the direction of a collective assembly, we have to include elements into the design that define the difference between a government and a league of alliances, and we must allow that government to have authority over the citizens, which is the only real thing a government can have authority over.
It's appropriate for a government to have the authority to make laws. A law carries the implication that there will be some way to enforce it. If there's no penalty or punishment for those who don't comply, then the law amounts to little more than a suggestion. Punishment or penalty can only be inflicted in two ways: by a legal court, or by a military. Enforcement has to be coerced by either a judicial system or with weapons. A judicial system only applies to individuals; a military has to be employed against political bodies, or communities, or States. The Articles of Confederation have no provision for a federal judicial system to enforce federal laws. Sentences might be threatened against those who don't do their duty, but the sentences can only be carried out with violence. In an organization where the collective authority is spread among the individual members or States, every violation of the laws could result in a war. Military force will be the only means to ensure civil obedience. That kind of situation hardly deserves to be called a government, and no reasonable person would willingly commit his happiness to it.
At one time we were told that States wouldn't violate the regulations of the federal authorities because a sense of common interest would motivate the individual States to comply with the constitutional requirements of the federal government. Hearing that same thing from opponents of the Constitution sounds ludicrous today when we've learned our lesson from experience. It doesn't account for the reality of human nature, which motivates all human conduct, and makes the establishment of a civil authority necessary in the first place. Why set up a government at all? Because the spirit of men will not comply with the requirements of reason and justice unless compelled to. Have we observed that men in groups behave with more decency or fair-mindedness than individuals? No; in fact, everyone who has accurately observed mankind has seen the opposite, and this is for obvious reasons. Men in groups are less concerned about damaging their reputation because any blame for a bad action can be spread among the group rather than falling on a single individual. A divisive spirit is more apt to mix its bitterness in the discussion of any group, and will cause the people making up the group to rush into all kinds of indecent actions and extremes that each one would be ashamed to do individually.
Besides all of this, it's part of the nature of sovereign power to desire control. It makes those who exercise sovereign power tend to object to all external attempts to restrain it or influence what it does. This same spirit is responsible for the fact that, in every political group formed around a common interest, there will be a curious tendency in the lesser entities to veer off from the center of the group's purpose. This tendency has an obvious explanation: it has its roots in the love of power. Power that's controlled or limited is always opposed to whichever authority is doing the controlling or limiting. This simple observation shows that there's no reason to expect that the people entrusted with administering the affairs of the different members of a group [such as individual States] will always be cheerfully willing to carry out the laws or decrees of the superior authority with an unbiased concern for the benefit of the general public. In fact, human nature means that the opposite is to be expected.
Therefore, if the rules of the federal government can't be carried out without interference from the individual State administrations, there's not much hope of them being carried out at all. The leaders of the individual States, whether they have a Constitutional right or not, will decide for themselves whether they want to comply with the rules. They'll consider whether compliance is in their best interests or coincides with their own goals, and what benefits or inconveniences would be associated if they comply. This is just what will happen. Those State leaders won't have the benefit of the information and national reasons for creating the law, and without that knowledge which is essential to make the correct decision, they'll act on their own local interests and with distrust towards the intent of the federal law. That can hardly make their decision the correct one. And this same decision-making process will go on multiple times within however many States are in the Union. Carrying out plans that have been designed by representatives from the entire country will depend on the judgment of uninformed and biased opinions of each individual State. Those who have experienced the proceedings of group meetings have seen how difficult it is to get everyone to agree to any harmonious conclusion on any important point when there's no exterior pressure from circumstances. Imagine how impossible it will be to get various assemblies in the different States to cooperate with the same opinions and actions when they're consulting at different times, in different places, and with their own different ideas about the issue.
Under the Articles of Confederation, it requires thirteen different sovereign States to agree before any important measure from the federal government can be carried out. We predicted it would be difficult to get all of them to agree on anything, and we were correct. Laws that the federal government passed have not been carried out. The failures of the States to comply have slowly developed to such an extreme that it has halted the workings of the national government and brought them to an absolute standstill. Right now Congress barely has the means to maintain any administrative framework until the States have time to ratify a more solid replacement for the Articles, which are merely the shadow of a federal government. Things didn't become this desperate all at once. The causes we've already mentioned only produced unequal and irregular compliance at first with what the Union requested. Some States claimed they lacked the means to comply, and that served as an example and temptation for other States that had the means to comply. Why should they have to do more than other States who are on the same political journey? Why should they volunteer to carry more than their fair share of the burden? The selfishness of human nature couldn't resist this temptation. Even farsighted men who could anticipate the consequences that would result, were unable to resist. Each State gave in to the persuasive temptation of their own immediate advantage or convenience and, one by one, withdrew its support, and now the frail, unstable structure of government seems like it's about to fall in on our heads and crush us under its ruins.
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, April 2020
All Federalist Paper paraphrases
Comments
Post a Comment