The Experiment of Self-Government Continues

I’ve just started going through the Hillsdale College online course[i] on The Federalist Papers. I hadn’t read The Federalist Papers in some time, and the revisit has been a good reminder of the quality of thought that went into our founding documents.

If you’ll recall, The Federalist Papers are essentially a series of op-eds, written after the Constitutional Convention, to encourage the states to ratify the new US Constitution. The writers are Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Hamilton and Madison were both pretty young, 30-something. Jay was older, but ill health got in the way of his help, which is why Madison got recruited to help finish the task. They all use the pseudonym of Publius. Their reasoning was that they wanted people to grapple with their arguments, rather than possibly dismiss them because of the personalities presenting them.

Alexander Hamilton (left), James Madison, and John Jay, writers of The Federalist Papers,
image from the Audible version

The first letter, Federalist 1, lays out the larger plan. It’s sort of an outline for the letters that follow. Hamilton puts it this way (I have put them in bullet point form):

I 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.

There were also, it should be noted, The Anti-Federalist Papers, which were even more voluminous. These were also newspaper op-eds intended to offer opposing arguments. And they are also valuable arguments. The titles might be a bit confusing, but they did not trust a central (federal) government with so much power; they would prefer more federalism—that is, they would rather have power disbursed among the states, rather than centralized.

But the Constitutional Convention took place because the previous confederation of states was too weak to accomplish the purposes for which the Constitution was needed. Re-read the Preamble to the Constitution to see the list of the Constitution's purposes. The Federalist Papers take on many of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists.

What the back and forth does show is that the founders went through a great deal of thought and deliberation—and necessary compromises—to start a country in a new way, with different purposes.

It probably ought to be a requirement for high school graduation—or at least for college graduation—to read and understand The Federalist Papers, so that a person can understand both the content and reasoning of our basic law: the US Constitution.

But there is, admittedly, a change in language over time. And, unfortunately, there has been a degradation of language skill since education became a government task. And, so, many people do not put forth the effort to understand older writings.

The founders’ way of writing exemplifies both their command of abstract ideas and of the English language.

Here’s a sample from Federalist 1:

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.

I thought I’d take a stab at putting that in modern-day plain English, which, by definition, will be less eloquent.

My Translation: It has been said that it is left to the people of this country, as an example through their actions, to determine whether societies really can establish good government by thoughtful, intentional choice, or whether societies are stuck determining their governments through chance and force.

Out of curiosity, I then put the task to ChatGPT

ChatGPT Translation: "People often say that it seems like it's up to the citizens of this country—through their actions and as an example to others—to answer a big question: Can human societies really create a good government by thinking things through and making conscious choices? Or are they forever stuck relying on random events and force to shape their political systems?"

That’s not too bad. I suppose if a careful reading gets too tough, a person could get AI assistance to make it plainer. But I think there is value for a person to become more exposed to the higher-level language and therefore more apt to understand it.

Looking again at Federalist 1, Hamilton is talking about arguments, and how good people might end up on both sides of an issue, depending on what they are most passionate about. So it’s not a good idea to be overly certain of one’s rightness. That leaves us with the need for good, reasoned arguments to help us as a society decide on issues—including important issues like the one before them of whether to ratify the Constitution.

Hamilton offers a few quotable phrases in Federalist 1. Here’s one:

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.

And a related one, which seems to apply to our day:

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 by the bitterness of their invectives.

This next one is cautionary:

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…. [O]f 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.

And one more. This one follows his admission that he has personally already made up his mind: he favors ratifying the Constitution. And he plans to lay out his reasons. This comes just before the bulleted list we started with:

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.

Good language can clarify and lead to truth. But it doesn’t always. Some people are skilled with words and use them to obfuscate the truth. That may be a reason we seem to prefer plain speaking today. (In Texas, plain speaking was preferred from the outset.)

As I’m writing, our President and his erstwhile ally and helper during the first months of his second presidency have been having a war of words. It has been pretty ugly. So maybe a reminder that even in the early days of the nation, good men who differed on certain issues attacked each other pretty mercilessly with words. A prime example was the rivalry of close friends John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The 1800 presidential campaign was a seriously negative one.

Jefferson’s campaigners (so not necessarily Jefferson himself, but in his support) called Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character.” Adams’ campaigners called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow.” And there were worse. They didn’t speak for a dozen years thereafter. Then they softened somewhat and became letter writing correspondents for the remainder of their lives, which ended on the same day, July 4, 1826, 50 years after the Declaration.

I don’t know whether our current feud will last for years or mend soon (I hope soon). The Babylon Bee was quick to summarize the split with this heading:

Judge Determines Trump Will Get the Nation on Weekdays, While Musk Gets Every Other Weekend and Holidays.

image of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk
 from the satire site The Babylon Bee

Some point out that both are right: we need that “Big Beautiful Bill” to pass, to fund border protection and other necessary agenda items; also, it’s disappointing that DOGE spelled out so many easy cuts, yet Congress is unwilling to make them.  Others speculate that this is theater, or that one or both might be a bit unhinged.

Ever since July 13, 2024, it seems to me that this country is in God’s hands, and I’ll just pray for all those involved. And hang on tight during the wild ride.

Hamilton, who speaks so reasonably in The Federalist Papers, died in a duel, following a war of words with a political rival Aaron Burr. Hamilton had said something negative about Burr at a dinner, which got back to Burr, who demanded he retract his words. It ended with Burr calling for a duel. Hamilton hated the practice (his oldest son had died in a duel) but accepted as a matter of honor; it was said he had intended to shoot wide. Burr had been practicing and did not miss. Burr did not regain his reputation, as he had hoped; he was seen as a murderer, but fled and was not prosecuted for that crime. He was later tried, and acquitted, for treason for a plot to invade Mexico and possibly also to cause the western states to secede. He had previously been Vice President. It was quite a fall from grace. Let’s just say a war of tweets, or as a last resort lawsuits over libel or slander are better than dueling.

Hamilton was considered one of the lesser thinkers during the founding era. He was a man of action, and somewhat impulsive. And yet his writings show a great respect for reasoned arguments. We might also note that, as challenging as they are for us today, the typical neighbor in the pub could understand them and converse about them.

In our world today we could use that better understanding of reasoned arguments in search of truth and wisdom. I still have hope that our experiment in self-government will prove that it can be done.

______________________

[i] Hillsdale College online courses are always free, although you can donate. They cover a wide range of information. Each includes multiple lectures, along with readings and quizzes, and are self-paced. I’ve gone through at least a dozen since their first Constitution 101 course.