Generated summaryThe real choice before the states is to adopt the new Constitution or watch the Union break apart, and readers should weigh the arguments on their merits, not on the self-interest or hidden bias of whoever makes them.Key points
The real choice is the new Constitution or disunion; the Union’s survival is at stake.
Weigh the plan on its merits, not the interests or passions of whoever argues it.
Good and wise men will land on both sides; zeal for liberty can itself hide ambition.
I write as an open friend of the Constitution and will give my reasons plainly.
Six topics follow: the Union’s usefulness, the Confederation’s weakness, the need for an energetic government, the plan’s republican fidelity, its likeness to the state constitutions, and the added security it gives.
After experiencing the weaknesses of the current federal system, you are now asked to consider a new Constitution for the United States. This is a very important matter: it involves the survival of the Union, the safety and well-being of its parts, and the fate of an empire that is in many ways the most interesting in the world. It has often been said that the people of this country have a unique opportunity to decide whether societies can create good governments through reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend on governments formed by chance and force. If this is true, then the crisis we have now reached is the very era in which that decision is to be made. If we choose poorly, it could fairly be considered a misfortune not just for us, but for all of humanity.
OriginalAFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
This idea, by combining the desire to do good for humanity with patriotism, will increase the concern that thoughtful and good people have for the outcome. It would be a happy thing if our decision were guided by a wise understanding of our real interests, unswayed by considerations unrelated to the public good. But that is more to be wished for than expected. The proposed plan affects so many personal interests and changes so many local systems that the discussion will likely include many topics not related to its actual merits. This mix of unrelated issues, strong emotions, and biases is not conducive to finding the truth.
OriginalThis idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.
Among the biggest challenges the new Constitution will face are two groups of people. First, there are those who currently hold power and benefit from the state governments. They will likely oppose any changes that could reduce their power, money, or status. Second, there are those who think they can gain more power if the country is divided into several smaller alliances instead of being united under one national government. They may hope to gain importance from their country’s confusion, or believe their chances of rising to power are better in a divided nation than under one government.
OriginalAmong the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
Although I’ve talked about how some people might oppose the new Constitution for selfish or ambitious reasons, it’s not fair to assume that everyone who disagrees is doing so for bad reasons. It’s important to acknowledge that even those who might benefit from opposing the Constitution can have good intentions. A lot of the opposition comes from honest mistakes, where people are misled by their fears or prejudices. It’s common for intelligent and good people to be on the wrong side of important issues because of these biases.
We should remember this and be moderate in our arguments, even when we are sure we are right. We can’t always assume that people who support the truth have better motives than those who don’t. Many factors, like ambition, greed, personal dislike, or party politics, can influence both sides of an argument. Even if there weren’t these reasons for being cautious, it’s wrong to be intolerant in politics. Just like in religion, trying to force people to agree with you is not effective and often backfires.
OriginalIt is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
Despite the fair-mindedness of these views, it’s likely that the debate over the new Constitution will be as heated and contentious as other major national discussions have been. We can expect that both sides will try to prove their points and win supporters by speaking loudly and attacking each other harshly. Those who advocate for a strong and effective government will be accused of loving power too much and being against freedom. Meanwhile, those overly jealous for the people’s rights, a fault more often of the head than of the heart, will be painted as insincere, chasing popularity at the expense of the public good.
People often forget that a deep love for liberty can lead to distrustful and narrow-minded views. It is just as easily forgotten that a strong government is essential to securing liberty: a sound judgment sees that the two interests can never be separated. And history teaches that of those who have overturned the liberties of republics, most began as demagogues courting the people and ended as tyrants. That road has destroyed far more republics than the pursuit of strong government ever has.
OriginalAnd yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
In my previous remarks, fellow citizens, my goal was to warn you against any attempts to sway your opinion on this very important issue, the new Constitution, by anything other than the truth. You’ve probably realized from my overall message that I support the new Constitution. I’ve thought about it carefully and believe that adopting it is in your best interest for maintaining your freedom, dignity, and happiness. I’m not pretending to be undecided; I’m openly sharing my opinion with you. I believe in being straightforward and clear about my intentions. However, I won’t just make claims about my motives; I’ll share my reasons and let you judge them. My arguments will be presented honestly and with respect for the truth.
OriginalIn the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.
I plan to cover several important topics in a series of papers. These include: (1) the benefits of the Union for your political prosperity, (2) the weaknesses of the current confederation in maintaining that Union, (3) the need for a government at least as strong as the one proposed to achieve this goal, (4) how the proposed Constitution aligns with the true principles of republican government, (5) the similarities between the proposed Constitution and your state’s constitution, and (6) the additional security its adoption will give to preserving that kind of government, to liberty, and to property.
OriginalI propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: 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 THE 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.
As this discussion progresses, I will try to provide clear answers to all the objections that have been raised or that might arise, especially those that appear to be significant or worthy of consideration.
OriginalIn the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.
It might seem unnecessary to argue for the benefits of the Union, as most people in every state likely deeply value it and it seems to have no opponents. However, there are whispers among those who oppose the new Constitution that the Thirteen States are too big for a single system, and that we should instead form separate confederacies of different parts of the whole. This idea will probably spread and gain supporters until it’s openly promoted. Those able to take a wide view of the subject will see clearly that the choice is either to adopt the Constitution or risk breaking up the Union. Therefore, it’s important to specifically discuss the advantages of the Union and the definite problems and likely dangers that each state would face if the Union falls apart. That will be the subject of my next paper.
OriginalIt may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address. PUBLIUS
