The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 85:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

According to the plan of these papers, announced in the first issue, there are two more points that need to be discussed. These are “the comparison between this proposed government and the current state constitution” and “the extra security this government will give to republic, freedom, and property”. However, these topics have already been discussed in detail, so it’s not possible to add much more. The discussion is so far along, and so much time has been spent on it, that it’s not possible to talk more about it.

It is amazing that the new plan for the union is similar to the plan that organizes the government of this state. Many of the supposed problems are the same in both plans. For example, the re-eligibility of the executive, the lack of a council, the omission of a bill of rights and the lack of a provision for the freedom of the press. People who criticize the new plan for these things, but don’t criticize the state plan, don’t seem to be very consistent. This shows that the people who are so angry about the new plan may not really be devoted admirers of the state plan.

The extra protections to the republic, liberty, and property found in this plan are mainly from the union keeping factions and revolts in check, and powerful people in one state from becoming tyrants. It also stops foreign interests from getting involved, and stops big military forces from forming in wars between states. It promises a republic form of government to each state, bans titles of nobility, and stops states from hurting property and credit and causing distrust among citizens and a decrease in morals.

I have completed the task I set out to do. I hope you will agree I have done it in a respectful way. I have only sought to appeal to your judgment, not engaging in the harshness of political debates. The accusation of a conspiracy against people’s liberties which has been made against those in favor of the plan is so wrong and malicious that it makes one angry. The criticism of the wealthy, the noble, and the powerful is wrong and should be rejected. Furthermore, the attempts to keep the truth from the public should be condemned. I may have spoken too strongly at times, but it has not been often.

Let’s stop and think about it. Have the papers we’ve looked at shown that the proposed constitution is okay and deserves the public’s approval? Is it needed for the safety and success of the nation? Everyone must answer these questions on their own, using their conscience and understanding. It’s a duty we can’t ignore. We mustn’t be influenced by partial motives, interests, pride, or temporary emotions. We should be careful not to be too loyal to a single party. We must remember that this is about more than just a part of the community – it’s about the future of the nation. Plus, most of America has already agreed to the plan.

I will not pretend that I strongly believe in the arguments that suggest you should accept this system. I cannot see any real strength in the arguments against it. I think it is the best that our political situation, customs, and beliefs will permit and better than anything that has come out of the revolution.

Friends of the plan have made concessions that it may not be perfect, which has given opponents of the plan a chance to gloat. They ask why not change it to be perfect before it is finalized? This is not a valid argument. The concessions made have been exaggerated and twisted to mean that the plan is fundamentally flawed and that it can’t be trusted to protect people’s rights and interests. Everyone who supports the plan will say that it is good overall, even though it may not be perfect in every way. It offers the security that a reasonable person would want.

I will say that it would be very foolish to keep our nation’s situation uncertain and put the union in danger by trying to find an impossible perfect plan. I don’t expect humans to ever create something perfect. Every group of people is made up of different people with different ideas, mistakes, and beliefs. This means that any agreement between 13 states must be a compromise between all these different opinions. It is impossible to get perfection from these kinds of materials.

The recent publication of a great pamphlet in this city outlines why it is unlikely to come together and have a successful convention, just like the last one did. I will not repeat the arguments in it since I think everyone has read it. Everyone should read it since it is so important for the good of our country. There is still one more point of view that needs to be taken into consideration before we make a final decision. Let’s take a look at it now.

It seems to me that it can be proven that it is easier to make changes to the Constitution after it has already been accepted than before. Once it is changed it is seen as a new thing and then each state has to agree to it again. To make it official, it needs the approval of 13 states. But if the Constitution is accepted as it is, then only 9 states need to agree to make any changes. This means that it is more likely that changes can be made after it is accepted than it is that it will be accepted in the first place.

Not all is done with the formation of a US constitution. It must include a lot of details to make sure the thirteen independent states’ interests and opinions of interest are taken into account. We can expect any group of people making this constitution to have different opinions on different topics. The majority on one issue may become the minority on another, and a different group may form the majority on a third. This makes it hard to come to an agreement on all the details of the constitution. It’s more difficult when there are lots of details and lots of groups that need to agree.

Every amendment to the constitution can be proposed one at a time. This means there is no need for negotiations or tradeoffs about other points. When nine or ten states agree on an amendment, it will be put into effect. This makes it much easier to make amendments than to create a constitution in the first place.

It is argued that those in charge of the national government will not give up any of the powers they have. In my opinion, any changes made will be to the way the government is organized, not to its powers. Also, the difficulty of governing thirteen states will make it necessary for the national rulers to meet their constituents’ expectations. Lastly, it is impossible to doubt that the national rulers will have no choice if nine states agree. The article of the plan says that Congress must call a convention if two-thirds of the states ask for it. So, all the talk about not wanting to change anything is wrong. Even if it is hard to get two-thirds or three-fourths of the states to agree to changes that affect local interests, it should be easy for them to agree on changes that help the general freedom and safety of the people. We can count on the states to stop the national government from taking too much power.

If the argument made is wrong, I must be mistaken too. I believe that it is one of those rare examples of a political truth that can be proven mathematically. People who feel the same way and are passionate about making changes must agree that the best way to do that is by first accepting it.

The enthusiasm to change things before the Constitution was established must go away for anyone who agrees with the wise writer who said it is very hard to balance a huge nation or society with general laws. No one person can do this alone, it needs the input of many people who must learn through experience. This should be a warning to all those who care about the union to not do anything that could lead to anarchy, civil war, or a military leader taking control. I don’t think it is a good idea to stay in the same situation because a country without a national government is scary. Creating a Constitution peacefully with the consent of the people is an amazing accomplishment, but starting over now would be risky because we have already made a lot of progress with seven out of the thirteen states. I am also aware that there are powerful people who don’t want a national government in any form.

---