|
  Forword... The Federalist Papers are a collection of articles that were published by newspapers in New York from late 1787 through early 1788. So what did this new constitution do? Our first constitution was a bill called the Articles of Confederation. These were written in 1776-77 just after the colonies declared independence from Great Britain. The Continental Congress was, at that time, the only institution of federal government. The Articles of Confederation formalized this situation and provided a weak framework under which the colonies could jointly prosecute the Revolutionary War. Passed by the 2nd Continental Congress in 1777, the Articles were not ratified by the colonies until March of 1781, seven months before the end of the war. The Articles formed the basis of a confederation of states. They required a protection of trade among them, and the free movement of citizens and goods. They required a common defense, and that states should not form alliances that might damage other states or the federation. The revolutionary war did, apparently, provide just enough commonality of purpose to keep the States working together. Following the war things began to deteriorate very quickly. England and Spain, both in control of large naval forces, were interfering with trade. They were preventing the transport of goods by sea not only to and from Europe but from state to state by coastal waters. They were in the habit of ignoring the federal government and manipulating one state against another. Not only was the national government unable to raise money to enforce its legislation and will, it was in debt and unable to pay. In order to support the revolutionary war, the various states and the federal government had borrowed money or goods from wealthy merchants. The United States needed standards of weights and measures and a standard currency in order to avoid unscrupulous speculation and predatory tricks based on uneven standards across state borders. How could the economy of the new nation be stabilized if each state government could print and issue its own script on a whim? Supporters of the new Constitution felt that there was no choice but to strengthen the federal government, enabling it to raise funds to pay off debts and improve the United States standing among nations. The common defense would include regulation of territorial waters & thus the federal government would have to build a Navy to control the behavior of England, Spain, France, and Holland regarding shipping traffic along the coast. The radical idea, a federation of independent states, had not yet been realized in a form that would be stable and long lasting. The new Constitution was an effort to answer these many problems and to establish a framework for a new kind of government that would be self-regulating and long-lasting.
Afterword... It would seem that the instruments of government established by our constitution, the bargain that was struck in order to assure a solid future for the United States, has done what was intended and perhaps more than the drafters could have wished. The world has changed dramatically since 1791. It is interesting to count the number of revolutions that have taken place since our founding fathers argued in a hall in Philadelphia. But it is also instructive to look at what has not changed. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison both took great pains to explore the problems presented by the disparity of property and influence in revolutionary America. Mr. Hamilton argued that it was only right that the wealthy and powerful should control government unconditionally. He said: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government." Hamilton even went so far as to propose at the Constitutional Convention that the President and the Senate be seated for life. While the members of the convention did not accept this notion, it is important to remember that we do not popularly elect our President. We have a popular vote that is supposedly reflected by the Electoral College. The electoral college has been infused with the power of our political party system from the beginning. Neither was the Senate elected by popular vote (until the 17th amendment changed this provision) but by appointment via the state legislatures. Great pains were taken to establish a system where the "mass of people" could feel that they were participating in government but where popular passion would never dictate hasty action. Mr. Madison was more agnostic in his consideration of the basis of power. He belonged to a group known as the "Jeffersonians" who were driven by concern for the problems of unequal distribution of property and wealth: "So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government." It is this very dichotomy between Hamilton and Madison (which is not represented very strongly in the Federalist Papers because they were after all an argument for the new constitution) that informed the first generation of national leaders in the United States. The first political parties were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalist Party, represented by the likes of Mr. Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, was comfortable with the old-world social class system & supported an executive with nearly dictatorial powers. Critics charged that Washington and Adams, the first two Presidents, were too concerned with pomp and honors attending the office and that they were too quick to mount a horse and enforce their will on the people. It appears there was reason to feel that these Presidents, and the cabinets that they appointed, intended powers similar to those of a monarch. The Democratic Republicans were taken with a vision of The Enlightenment and felt that power devolved solely to the people. Thomas Jefferson - author of The Declaration of Independence, and our third President - was the intellectual leader of this group. He was deeply suspicious of any act or ceremony that saw the Federal government as a ruler, rather than as servant, of the people. So it was that this new constitution left many things unresolved. It would take decades of political strife and sometimes physical conflict to iron out the ultimate character of our federal government and its uneasy relations with the states. We frequently hear references to these essays and their authors employed on the floor of the House of Representatives as we grapple with the course our federal pact has taken in the last two hundred plus years. It is important to note that these essays, and indeed the Constitution itself, are not perfect documents of what our governments do, or of what they should do. The men who designed our Constitution understood this: the new constitution was amended within nine months of its ratification by the Bill of Rights (drafted by James Madison). Some people like to insist that the Constitution is an absolute guide, even a divine guide, to the dimensions of our nation and her people. This is certainly not an argument supported by the gentlemen who wrote these essays. They recognized the constitution for what it was: a compromise. Why after all did it establish three distinct branches of government, each with powers both general & discreet, to counteract the danger of corruption presented by so much power? Why did it provide for amendment, authority for which was distributed to the states? Our constitution has been amended twenty-seven times since it was ratified in 1791. An examination of the progression of amendments shows that changes are usually related to periods of great social upheaval: the Civil War, rapid economic expansion, the Great Depression, the Civil Rights Movement. While our constitution is a contract of unprecedented stability, clearly we do change it in times of need. Even so, the changes are generally very conservative. The required two-thirds ratification by the states and the diversity of interests and opinion across them are good assurance against any effort to radically alter our form of government by constitutional amendment. While the Constitution itself is a very conservative instrument, the government that it established has been quite dynamic. We can point to occasions of Judicial activism, Legislative activism, or Executive activism in our nation's history. Activism on the part of the President is something we expect. We see this as a sign of leadership and we appreciate it, so long as the authority of the office is tempered by the Legislature and the Judiciary. Legislative activism is more rare, typically driven by response to the executive - either supportive or reactive. Judicial activism is rare indeed. We view such activity with concern, for the Judiciary serves a traditional role as the very bastion of conservatism. During the Civil Rights movement, the Supreme Court sought to enforce certain of its findings through the use of executive power. It was able to do so, but at the cost of such outrage & controversy that these actions are still debated regularly more than thirty years later.   - except wherein noted.All rights reserved. |
Published originally under the pseudonym PUBLIUS, these eighty-five essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, to explain the benefits of the proposed Constitution to the people and to defend it against its many critics.
However, the Continental Congress had no means to raise funds to conduct its business. The Articles gave no authority for taxation except with regard to a federally regulated postal system. Though the Congress was charged with providing for the common defense, it could only request quotas of troops from the states. The states frequently could not or would not comply. General George Washington complained repeatedly that the Congress did not adequately support the army of the Revolutionary War.
Following the war, the federal government also borrowed money from Holland, France, and from several of the states in order to rebuild.