See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
[October 27, 1787]
To the People of New York:
A Crucial Moment for America’s Future
After the undeniable experience of the inefficiency of the existing federal government,¹ you are now called to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance, for its consequences involve nothing less than the survival of the UNION, the safety and welfare of its parts, and the fate of an empire, in many respects, the most consequential in the world.
It has often been remarked that the people of this country seem to have been uniquely chosen to decide a great question—by their conduct and example: whether human societies are truly capable of establishing good government through reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend on accident and force. If there is any truth in that remark, then we may rightly regard this moment as the era in which that decision must be made. And if we choose wrongly, that error may rightly be counted a misfortune—not just for us, but for all mankind.
This thought should stir our concern—not only as patriots, but as friends of mankind. We will be fortunate if our choice is guided by a careful estimate of our true interests, undisturbed by bias or distractions unrelated to the public good. But such clarity is more to be wished than expected. The plan before us touches too many vested interests and unsettles too many local institutions to avoid drawing in a host of considerations foreign to its merits—and with them, passions and prejudices that are ill-suited to the discovery of truth.
The Obstacles Ahead
Among the most formidable obstacles this new Constitution will face is the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist any change that might reduce the power, pay, or prestige of the offices they hold under current state governments. Another obstacle lies in the perverted ambition of those who hope to advance themselves through national confusion—or who flatter themselves with better chances of rising in a nation divided into partial confederacies than in one united under a single government.
Even so, it is not my aim to dwell on such observations. It would be uncharitable—and unwise—to assume that all opposition to the new Constitution springs from selfish or ambitious motives, merely because some men’s positions may invite suspicion. We must admit that even such men may act from upright intentions. Much of the opposition we’ve seen—or may yet see—will come from sources at least blameless, if not respectable: the honest errors of minds misled by long-held fears or prejudices.
So many forces can distort judgment that we often see wise and good men on the wrong as well as the right side of questions of the greatest importance to society. This fact, rightly considered, ought to teach moderation—even among those most certain of their own rightness. We must also acknowledge that those who defend the truth are not always guided by purer motives than those who oppose it. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, partisan zeal, and other unworthy motives can influence defenders of truth just as easily as its critics.
Even without such temptations, nothing is more misguided than the intolerant spirit that has too often marked political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to seek converts by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
And yet, we must brace ourselves. As in every great national debate, a torrent of angry and destructive passions will be unleashed. Judging by the behavior of opposing sides, it’s easy to predict how they will try to prove their points—by raising their voices and sharpening their attacks, hoping that loud declarations and bitter accusations will win converts to their cause.
An enlightened zeal for a strong and effective government will be denounced as the work of those who crave despotic power and despise liberty. At the same time, an exaggerated fear for the people’s rights—more often a fault of the head than of the heart—will be dismissed as mere pretense, a tired ploy for popularity at the expense of the public good.
It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that suspicion often accompanies genuine love, and that the noble enthusiasm for liberty is prone to narrow, distrustful thinking. On the other hand, it will also be forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the protection of liberty—that in the eyes of sound judgment, their interests are inseparable.
History teaches us that the greater danger often hides behind the mask of zeal for the people’s rights, not in open support for government strength. The road to despotism is far more likely to begin with false flattery of the people. The men who have destroyed republics almost always started as their most devoted champions—rising to power by courting popular favor. They began as demagogues; they ended tyrants.
A Call for Fair Judgment
My fellow citizens, I urge you to stay vigilant. Don’t let anyone, from any side, influence your judgment with anything other than truth and reason. By now, it should be clear that I’m not hostile to the new Constitution. In fact, after careful consideration, I am convinced that adopting it is the safest course for our liberty, dignity, and happiness. I will not feign reservations I do not have. I will not feign deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge my convictions and will freely explain the reasons for them. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity.² But I will not belabor declarations of my good intentions. My motives must remain with me. My arguments will be open to all and may be judged by all. I will offer them in a spirit that at least does not disgrace the cause of truth.
The Plan for These Papers
In a series of essays, I will address several key points:
- The Benefits of the Union for Your Political Prosperity
- The Inadequacy of the Current Confederation to Preserve the Union
- The Necessity of a Government as Strong as the One Proposed
- The Alignment of the Proposed Constitution with Republican Principles
- Its Similarity to Your Own State Constitution
- The Additional Security It Offers for Liberty and Property
Along the way, I will address every serious objection that deserves your attention.
It might seem unnecessary to argue for the Union’s value—something deeply embedded in the hearts of most Americans. But recent whispers in private circles suggest otherwise. Some claim that the thirteen states are too large for one system and that we should instead divide into separate confederacies.* This idea will likely spread until it gains enough support for open debate. Nothing is more evident to anyone who takes a broad view of the subject: the real choice before us is this—adopt the new Constitution or face the inevitable dismemberment of the Union.
– PUBLIUS
* Several recent publications opposing the new Constitution contain the same idea if we follow their arguments to their conclusions.
¹ Prior to the Constitution, the federal government was organized according to The Articles of Confederation.
² A line too good to alter but still perhaps difficult to understand. Hamilton is stating that a well-intentioned person desires to argue with transparency and clarity.
See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
teddy ray 