The Federalist Papers were written under the pseudonym “Publius,” whose authors had him acting the part of a founder of the Roman Republic. I do not think that was an accident. We touched a bit on the philosophy of Roman citizenship a while back, and the trio of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay undoubtably had the liberal concept of citizenship in mind when they picked that pseudonym.
As you will recall, the republican model of government described the ability of citizens to participate in government by voting for laws or by holding office. In the liberal model, being a Roman citizen conferred upon the holder of that title certain rights that were inviolate, even by a magistrate whose powers were otherwise almost unlimited. The cīvis rōmānus had those rights by virtue of being a citizen. No other requirement was needed. The proposed constitution contemplated the creation of the American citizen.
Although Hamilton was part of the New York delegation that was largely anti-federalist (against any form of federal government), both Hamilton and Madison wanted a stronger central government. Even though neither was satisfied with the final constitution, they both decided that it was the best compromise that could be reached and that they should work for its adoption.
Hamilton, writing as Publius, starts off Federalist I by rejecting any impartiality. He states flatly that “it is in your interest to adopt” the Constitution and that it is the best course to ensure the citizen’s liberty, dignity, and happiness. There are six propositions that Publius sets about to explore in the Federalist Papers.
“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 with the one proposed, to be 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.”[1]
Please note that Hamilton sees the form of government proposed in the constitution as a key tool to preserve liberty and property, not as a tool for the restriction of either. From there each paper goes on to address specific issues and they are all predicated on two fundamental assumptions. The first is that failure to ratify the constitution will result in the separation of the states and the dissolving of the young republic, and the second is that only the government proposed in the constitution is sufficient to preserve the republic. The idea that the existing Articles of Confederation could be sufficient is never addressed. It is Publius’ belief that the existing Articles would likely result in the creation of at least two rival groups of states.
John Jay, continuing as Publius, wrote Federalist II, and in it he addresses a key question, what were the alternatives to a single constitution. There were many who felt that the 13 individual states could exist better on their own, and further that the structure of separate states was superior to a single united group of states. Compounding the difficulty for Jay was that the very authors of the failed Articles of Confederation were the same people who were now saying that this new constitution was the right choice. In addition, he acknowledged the challenge that,
“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
It is clear that Jay understood the concern the citizens of the individual states would have giving any power to a centralized government. I point that out because that understanding is key to reading the rest of the document. Jay is saying that the people must give over some of their “natural rights”, but only the minimum necessary to make this constitution work. In a passage that was reminiscent of both Aristotle and Plato before him, Jay stated that,
“It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.”
He goes on to say that the same natural structure that made the territory seem an ideal body as a whole can be seen in its inhabitants who,
“descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government… fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
In that passage he follows the philosophers before him who saw in nature the parallels to the forms of government that they believed were the most noble. The country and the people that inhabit it were made for each other by the “design of Providence.”
Jay is careful to point out that this proposed constitution is only “RECOMMENDED” (emphasis in the original) not imposed, a key component of the republican form of government. And in Federalist II, Jay defends the Articles of Confederation as the best that could be done at the time when the nation was in flames and fighting the British.
Jay points out that Providence has given them this large territory, a common ancestry, that they have already fought and made treaties as a nation, and that the writers of this new proposed constitution are some of the most trusted people in all those other endeavors.
He argues that the citizens should trust them once more. More on this in Part II.
#ConventionOfStates #Constitution #StatesRights #Federalis
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Patriot.Online: @AFNN
3 thoughts on “Federalist I and II”