See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
[October 31, 1787]
To the People of New York.
Americans now face a question whose consequences will rank among the most important ever to claim their attention. It is only proper, then, that they approach it with a broad and serious view.
Government is indispensable; nothing is more certain. Equally undeniable is that whenever and however government is formed, the people must yield some of their natural rights to endow it with the powers it needs. It is therefore worth careful thought whether the American people would be better served by remaining, for general purposes, one nation under a federal government—or by dividing into separate confederacies, each granting to its head the same powers now proposed for a national government.
Until recently, it was a settled and unchallenged belief that America’s prosperity depended on firm union, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens were devoted to that cause. But now, politicians argue that this view is mistaken—that safety and happiness lie not in union, but in the division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may seem, it has its advocates. Some who once opposed it now count themselves among its supporters. Whatever arguments or motives have brought about this change, the people would be unwise to adopt these new ideas without full and careful examination, to be sure they are rooted in truth and sound policy.
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America is not a scattering of distant territories, but one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country—the inheritance of the sons of liberty. Providence has richly blessed it with a variety of soils and productions and watered it with countless streams for the delight and benefit of its people. A succession of navigable waters forms a natural chain around its borders, binding it together, while great rivers at convenient distances provide highways for easy movement of aid and the exchange of goods.
With equal pleasure, I have often noted that Providence has given this one country to one people—a people descended from common ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, cherishing the same principles of government, and resembling one another in manners and customs. Bound together by shared counsel, arms, and sacrifice, they fought side by side through a long and bloody war and nobly secured their general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem made for each other. It appears as if Providence intended that an inheritance so fitting for a band of brothers—tied by the strongest bonds—should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
This sentiment has prevailed among all ranks and orders of men among us. For all general purposes, we have been one people—each citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation, we have made peace and war; as a nation, we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation, we have formed alliances, made treaties, and entered into agreements with foreign powers.
A strong sense of the blessings of union led the people, even in their earliest days, to establish a federal government to preserve and secure it. They did so almost as soon as they had political existence—indeed, while many of their homes still burned, and their fellow citizens still bled, and while devastation left little room for the calm inquiry that must precede the formation of a wise and balanced government. It is no wonder, then, that a government framed amid such hardship should later prove defective and inadequate.
This intelligent people saw and regretted those defects. Still as devoted to union as they were to liberty, they saw the immediate danger to the former and the more distant danger to the latter. Persuaded that security for both required a more wisely framed national government, they convened the recent Convention at Philadelphia, speaking as with one voice, to address the problem.
The Convention, composed of men who enjoyed the people’s confidence—many of whom had distinguished themselves for their patriotism, virtue, and wisdom in trying times—undertook the arduous task. In the calm of peace, with minds undistracted by other matters, they spent many months in cool, uninterrupted daily consultations. Free from the influence of power and driven by nothing but love of country, they produced, through joint and very unanimous counsel, the plan they now present and recommend.
It must be admitted—and so it is—that this plan is only recommended, not imposed. Yet it is not recommended for blind approval, nor for blind rejection, but for that sober and candid consideration that a matter of such magnitude demands. Whether it will in fact be so considered is more to be wished than expected. Experience warns us not to hope too much. It is not forgotten that grave fears led the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended measures to its constituents, whose wisdom was later confirmed by events. Yet we remember how quickly pamphlets and newspapers sprang up to oppose them. Many government officials, driven by self-interest, and others swayed by loyalty to old attachments or ambitions contrary to the public good, worked tirelessly to persuade the people to reject the Congress’s advice. Many were deceived, but the great majority reasoned wisely and decided well—and today they rejoice in that decision.
They reflected that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men; that drawn from different parts of the country, they brought with them and shared a wealth of information; that through inquiry and discussion, they gained a deep understanding of the nation’s true interests; and that their own liberty and prosperity were bound up with the nation’s fate—so that inclination and duty alike led them to recommend only measures they judged prudent and necessary.
These and similar reflections led the people to place great trust in the Congress’s judgment and integrity, despite all efforts to dissuade them. And if they had reason then to trust that body—composed mostly of men still untested and unknown—how much greater reason have they now to trust the Convention, which included men since tried, approved, and seasoned by long years of political service.
It is also worth noting that not only the first Congress, but every Congress since—and the recent Convention itself—have joined the people in believing that America’s prosperity depends on its Union. Preserving that Union was the great aim of the Convention, just as it was the great aim of the people who called it.
With what reason, then, or for what good purpose, do some now attempt to diminish the importance of Union? Why suggest that three or four confederacies would serve better than one? I am convinced that the people have always judged rightly on this point, and that their consistent attachment to the cause of Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I will seek to explain in the papers to come.
Those who urge replacing the Convention’s plan with distinct confederacies clearly foresee that rejecting it would endanger the Union itself. And surely that would be the result. I can only hope that every good citizen will see this just as clearly—and will remember that if the Union ever dissolves, America will have reason to cry out with the poet: “Farewell, a long farewell, to all my greatness.”¹
— Publius
¹ Quoting Cardinal Wolsey’s lament at his downfall, as dramatized by Shakespeare in King Henry VIII, Act III, Scene 2.
See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
teddy ray 