The Federalist Papers
Please read the first Fed paper (and any other that catches your attention) by Hamilton (Link is above). Please post a comment to this post that responds to the following queries:
What point is Hamilton making here?
What do you think about his argument?
Please be thoughtful in your comments!
HAPPY NEW YEAR! Mrs. Branigan
Hamilton here is discussing why men might be for or against the adoption of the new Constitution. There is, he says, a chance that men on both sides might be corrupt, and might use the presence (or lack) of a Constitution to gain something for themselves. There may also be those, who, though they believe in what they are doing, are just wrong, working on some misguided judgement. He also reminds us that pro-Constitutioners may be maligned because of their zeal for government; some will say that they are trying to be totalitarians. Rather, he believes that these totalitarians can be found in those who say the people should have the power. These leaders, history has shown, soon become despots, rather than those who want a stronger government, as the Pro-Constitutioners do.
ReplyDeleteI believe that he is right on the first count. Everyone sees things in different ways; one man's truth might be another man's falsehood, one's right might be another's wrong, and etc. Along with that, people are not always altruistic, so he's right there too. However, on the second, I don't know if that's right. However, the part about the despots sucking up to the people sounds about right.
Hamilton is essentially writing his opinions of the Constitution, and more specifically, in the support of a Constitution. He is lobbying for a "UNION" and a central government instead of 13 confederacies.
ReplyDeleteHamilton is very interesting because he insists that "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." He goes on about how this is just a look at the Constitution not an argument for it. Yet, at the same time he clearly states that he is trying to persuade his readers to support the Constitution. He even goes so far as spending a paragraph on how sometimes good men are on the wrong side of a question. Apart from this duality, Hamilton does set up his argument well and is going about it the right way (addressing "THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION").
What I find most important about this introduction is just how politically versed Hamilton is. He completely understands and acknowledges how disastrous arguments between political parties are and still delves into them.
Hamilton seems to think that the American Constitution needs some revisions, and he places his thoughts on how liberty, government and property can be better preserved with a revised constitution. He makes references to arguments for why the constitution needs to change (some of which were slightly backhanded. He sites that "a certain class of men in every state" will cling to the old ways and not want to change, holding the constitution back, and theoretically the country), but doesn't delve into exactly what his arguments are for revising the constitution. Seeing as this is the first federalist paper and even states toward the end this is what i will be talking about in the rest, its a good place to begin and doesn't need to flesh out the arguments that much (this is basically an introduction).
ReplyDeleteHamilton is pushing the people of the United States of America to consider a ratifying the constitution. He goes on to say if the people are ready to accept rebellion it will have a worldwide effect. He acknowledges that people will oppose rebellion. Furthermore he addresses the debate of state or national government. He states that our counter is too big to have a national government. I agree with Hamilton about a ratified constitution, because the American people's desires change, and the government should change with it. But I disagree with his desire to want a state government because a country without a strong national government, does not have much power.
ReplyDeleteIn the Federalist Papers, Hamilton analyzes the current United States government - the 13 confederacies- and tries to offer a solution to the poorly designed structure. He states that the 13 confederacies, and with it the Articles of Confederation, are too detached from one another, which causes disarray and noncompliance. Therefore, though the Federalist Papers are certainly an analysis of American government, it is also a document with intentions of convincing both the political and public spheres that the Constitution and a central government is a better solution. I agree with Hamilton is the sense that he astutely recognizes a key issue in the government of that time: that the government was not acting as a single unit and did not protect the people's rights; instead, states were just bickering. However, I do see the other side of the argument that the creation of a central government may eventually turn into despotism but I admire Hamilton for proposing such a bold and new type of government. Go Hamilton!
ReplyDeleteHamilton's Federalist Paper No. 1 seems to be an introductory into his main argument: rejecting the current government, and urging a new constitution. Hamilton states, "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." However, Hamilton goes on to say that mankind has failed to choose a "good government." Hamilton continues by stating that he is on the side of the people of the US, "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." Although Hamilton wants to support the people, he also discusses his own bias. He strongly urges a new constitution, which would result in a stronger form of government. Overall, he is trying to sway the people to support his claim for a new constitution. I agree with Hamilton that it should be the people's choice to choose, and there are definitely biases in any government. Hamilton is well informed and outspoken in this preview to the numerous federalist papers to come.
ReplyDeleteThe Federalist Papers are a group of 85 "essays" with the intentions of promoting and ratifying the Constitution. Hamilton begins the first paper by stating to the people the necessity for the Constitution on account of the faults and ineffectiveness of the current government. He says that though he does have personal motives for the ratification, his arguments remain open. He genuinely believes that it is necessary for the people's liberty, dignity, and happiness.
ReplyDeleteHamilton goes on to say what he will address in the following papers: political prosperity and the constitution, the problems with the current government in preserving the Union, the constitution's relationship with republican principles, and the protection of liberty and property under the new government.
Personally, I believe that what Hamilton is proposing is necessary for the preservation of the Union. For such a large state to survive, it is necessary to have centrality and unification under a strong national government. Each state can't operate under its own motives and intentions; then it would be a bunch of small countries. However, Hamilton is very open with the fact that he has personal motives for the ratification of the constitution. I don't think it was necessary for him to include that information; rather he should have just proposed his plans and voiced the necessity for the good of the people. In conclusion, I do agree with the plans set forth my Hamilton, but I disagree to an extent with how he proposes it.
In the first Federal Paper, Hamilton asks the people to consider the Constitution and promises to present the pros of the Constitution. He questions whether or not the people are capable of establishing good governments from reflection and choice. Hamilton's main point is to introduce his reasons for supporting the Constitution and to enthuse people about this new form of government. He acknowledges the reservations many people have; however, his focus is on arguments that support the Constitution. Hamilton also establishes the conflicts he will later address in the Papers.
ReplyDeleteIt was difficult for me to get a strong sense of what his argument is only based on the first essay. I understood that he supports the Constitution but he does not go into detail. However, I think he does a good job of introducing the topic and acknowledging reservations while still maintaining his argument. Hamilton also seems to have a very concise view and order to his argument which makes the other essays more comprehensive.
Hamilton makes strong points about the obstacles the Union would face changing its style of government to the design laid out. He touches on the nature of powerful men and how they would utilize the confusion and susceptibility to corruption found in the politicians. Hamilton continues to highlight the influence of misguided individuals and the conflict of opposite ideals. While one man could be blind to the threat of a totalitarian leader, another could miss the benefits of a constitution. Hamilton clearly supports the Constitution, planting seeds of doubt towards the "good men" who are merely on the wrong side of the issue. He presents slight contradiction, but lends to the idea that his motivation should be made known. I see this as the most important point Hamilton makes. His goal is a better state and presenting his arguments and feelings are the only way to approach this issue and not "disgrace the cause of truth."
ReplyDeleteIn his first Federalist paper, Hamilton tries to convince the public to support the new constitution. He says that this constitution will create a different state that is better than what they have experienced before. Unlike a strong centralized government where the people have little to now control, Hamilton says that this new constitution will provide power to the states and the people. His main argument is that people should support this constitution because it will provide them with power in how their government is run as well as protection of rights. Overall, he says that adopting it is in their best interest. This new constitution is aimed at preserving the union that promotes the rights of the political prosperity of the citizens, which the confederation failed at.
ReplyDeleteI think that Hamilton's argument is very strong and convincing. What makes his argument even better is that he accounts for sources of opposition. He says that of course some will oppose the new constitution, but this should not dissuade others from supporting it. He clearly proposes why this constitution will lead to a better situation for the citizens, a situation where they have power and protection for their rights. By adopting this constitution, they would have more dignity, liberty, and happiness.
The main point of Federal Paper 1 is to provide an outline for the rest of the papers, and to argue against the Articles of Confederation. After the Constitution was introduced, there was a lot of Anti-Federalist opposition to the document. Furthermore, when the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, Anti-Federalist essays condemning the document began to surface. Hamilton, among other Federalists, quickly responded; Federalist Paper 1, Hamilton's first response, opposes the Articles of Confederation and attempts to impress upon citizens the need to reject the current form of government. Hamilton also discusses the Constitution and supports it by providing six key concepts, which will be discussed later in the papers. Hamilton sets up his argument well and seems to be well informed, and I agree with him that people should be able to make their own choices.
ReplyDeleteHamilton is arguing as to whether or not the new Constitution should be adopted by the thirteen colonies. He explains that with this new Constitution, there will be a difference of opinions in most people based on their own ideas. He mentions that some men may have "upright intentions" but due to fear, jealousy, and other means that can sway a man's opinion, the intentions become misguided. While risks such as that are possible, Hamilton argues that it is better to have a Constitution and a risk of misguided judgment rather than no Constitution and yet poor judgment all the same. While a poor government might result from a misguided leader, at least the leaders intentions were well intended. Hamilton believes that Constitution is beneficial to the colonies because acknowledging good intentions to rule is better than being doubtful of any intentions. I agree with Hamilton's argument for Constitution, because though he clearly admits that people have flaws that are likely to effect the government, he points out that if they are well intended, that is better than lacking confidence in one's ability to govern.
ReplyDeleteHamilton argues for a more centralized American government. A government that would be stable and more resilient to populist uprisings (like Shays Rebellion). The problem with a centralized government is the inevitable encroachment upon citizens civil liberties. As we've seen recently with the SOPA legislation. When power is concentrated in the hands of few, Washington career politicians, abuses of power and regional disputes (Iowa wants this Florida wants that) are inevitable. Today, the Constitution is responsible for much of the political dysfunction in government. Culturally and economically distinct regions, the North and South, are continually being forced together by Hamilton's centralized government. It is impossible to believe that two regions, so different ideologically, could ever reconcile themselves to govern at all! Ideally, a decentralized government, as championed by Jefferson, would have saved the United States from Washington's incompetence, leaving the states to govern themselves.
ReplyDelete