As you probably know, the Constitutional Convention was held over the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, with the purpose of hammering out a plan for a more effective national government than had been provided by the Articles of Confederation, which had been in operation since 1776. In September of 1787, a full draft of the US Constitution was circulating among the States, awaiting ratification by as many of the thirteen States as would sign it. The Federalists were, in the simplest terms, the American nationalists, who wanted a unified government instead of the loose confederation. (This is too simple, of course-- the Federalists also had an economic agenda in wanting to establish free market capitalism).
Ratifying the Constitution was never a gimme. Many people, both common citizens and members of State governments, opposed the whole principle of making the national government stronger. And even those who agreed that the Articles were too weak had many objections to the details of the particular Constitution that was offered to them. The loudest of these nay-sayers are called Anti-Federalists with the hindsight of history. In September and October 1787, several prominent Anti-Federalists published scathing editorials in the New York Times under pen names such as Cato and Brutus. They attacked the proposed Constitution, identifying weaknesses and pointing out what dangers lay in certain of its principles.
The Federalist Papers are a strong retort to the objections voiced against the fresh new Constitution. They, too, were published in the New York Times under a pen name-- Publius-- and appeared between October 1787 and March 1788. Later, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison admitted authorship, with the assistance of John Jay for a few pieces.
You already know how the story ends-- the Federalists won, of course. The Constitution was ratified by all thirteen States, and The United States of America was born. But it is fascinating to read The Federalist Papers and see not only what objections were raised to the Constitution, but also how these objections were countered. You can learn a lot about how people of a certain time thought, and what they considered relevant and important, by reading contemporary political arguments.
I'm not going to go into great detail, however. Way too many bad high school essays and dry scholarly tomes have been written about The Federalist Papers. I'm just going to point out one thing that really stood out to me as I plowed through the 85 essays that compose this work. And that is that it represents a thoroughly rational worldview in the full philosophical sense. These guys are striking political examples of the same Enlightenment-Era economic/scientific mindset that launched the impending Industrial Revolution.
Almost every Federalist Paper is written on the same template. It goes like this: "It has come to our attention that certain individuals have objected to the Constitution on points A, B, and C. However, all men of intellectual integrity will immediately realize that such protests are founded upon the faultiest of logic, as we shall now demonstrate. Concerning point A, there are three reasons why no man sensible to the needs of the American people could possibly find merit in it. First... second... third... Moving on to point B, etc... And hence, we conclude that these objections have been satisfactorily answered, and there can be no further reason to doubt this aspect of the Constitution."
That's it. You have now read The Federalist Papers, except for filling in the particulars of each logical argument.
But actually, that's not quite it. It is interesting to note that the Federalists' eminently logical arguments are in fact flawed, in two ways. First, they are too rational-- they are blind to some of the "soft" moral and humanistic elements that every government needs. For instance, you might want to read Federalist 54, which is a very logical explanation of why the three-fifths rule makes sense. Later, Hamilton also argues why trial by jury is often a bad idea and why a Bill of Rights is not only unnecessary but even dangerous for this Constitution.
Second-- and this is especially ironic-- some of the Federalists' arguments are inconsistent. Listen to Madison in Federalist 58, where he explains why it's a bad idea to let the number of members in the House of Representatives get too large, as the US population grows:
"...in all legislative assemblies, the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous any assmebly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptor had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meeting of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit they strengthen the barrier against the government of the few.... The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motion are directed."
What he's saying is this: government by a small group is obviously bad (remember that some of Europe is still under the grip of corrupt monarchies, and America is reacting strongly against this). But government by a large group is also bad because large groups are both too "passionate" and too likely to contain members of "weak capacities." True democracy-- government by all the people-- was anathema to the Federalists. They believed in government by the rational elite, who would be elected by the people to play the role of benign magistrates. But there's the inconsistency! If Madison is concerned about the House of Representatives getting too large-- and hence too passionate-- how can he possibly believe that the mass population would be capable of electing the rational elite? Why wouldn't their passions lead them to make the wrong choices?
In the end, the Federalist position is not the triumph of reason that it is mythologized to be (or that it was perceived to be by its authors). It is, like many political arguments today, a seemingly rational structure to justify their agenda, which was to replace the Articles of Confederation with an efficient national government that would allow free-market capitalism to flourish and the United States to grow and take a place on the world stage.
I happen to think that they had a fine vision. The US is far better off now than it would be if we had continued as thirteen independent countries, loosely bound in what was essentially a trading agreement. So I am glad the Federalists won. It's just interesting to step back and view their means-to-the-end from a historical perspective.
I give this book a "+". It's valuable reading to understand the foundation of this country. To leave you with a look toward the future, I'll mention the following: with the advent of modern communication (and the Internet in particular), US society is moving away from the Federalist concept of government by the select few. We are becoming more democratic, a situation that the Constitution was not actually designed to handle. Now that we know more about chaotic systems, and systems with intelligence concentrated not at the center but at the edges, might we need to rethink the structure of governance? Cyberspace is unlike any human society that has ever existed. I suspect different political principles will emerge from that sort of interaction. How will they relate to the well-established "meatspace" governments we already have? The future of politics is interesting. Read The Federalist Papers for background information.
Copyright © Kim Allen 2000
