The Annapolis Convention convened in order for the representatives of the states to vote on whether to change the Constitution, pursuant to Article XIII. The Union was a disaster and many were unhappy about it. The states recognized that it needed to change, and if the Federalist Papers are any indication, they were leaning towards our current Constitution, but some opposed it.
The purpose of the Federalist papers was to stress the importance of adopting the Constitution. In “The Federalist Papers: No.1,” Alexander Hamilton notes that
The purpose of the Federalist papers was to stress the importance of adopting the Constitution. In “The Federalist Papers: No.1,” Alexander Hamilton notes that
The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.
The world was watching to see what would become of the young country. The Articles of Confederation wasn’t working, as we saw from Shay’s Rebellion, but what other course of action did they have? It wasn’t just the country’s reputation at stake, it was also the liberty of all those who belonged within its borders. Why would the states need to be convinced to adopt the Constitution? Hamilton writes of a proposed alternative, in which the US would be divided into separate confederacies. It was in his opinion that adopting the Constitution would benefit the safety and welfare of the country. John Jay concurred with Hamilton in his Federalist Papers. He also gave reasoning behind the desire to adopt a Constitution with a stronger central government:
It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object.
He believed that the success of America depended on the unity of the people. After the Revolutionary War, the people came together and acknowledged that they needed to form a government quickly to establish themselves as a country. They didn’t even take the time to get their lives in order before the Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation. If the US were to be divided into separate confederacies or sovereign entities, it would be weaker. And who would stop foreign powers from invading to take over? Jay noted that the US was party to several treaties, but if one of the foreign nations decided to break the treaty, separate confederacies wouldn’t be able to fend them off. Jay stressed the safety of the people in general. He also explained that if the Constitution were ratified, government would act in the best interests of its citizens:
Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,--especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
Those in office would act to keep the citizens safe from foreign attacks while acting in their best interests. Our current government was designed to be systematic, instead of the unwieldy giant it appears to be today. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison stressed safety in the federalist papers, but they were not seeking a “Nanny state” in which the government tells you how to run your life. They intended the government to run interference with foreign powers. Think about it: do you really need the government to tell you not to text and drive? Do you really need the government to tell you how to spend your money? It’s none of the government’s business if I decided to buy a used car or a new car. The government shouldn’t protect you from yourself because you don’t want to make a decision, the government should protect you from those seeking to invade us. In “The Federalist Papers: No. 4,” Jay worried how the US would be able to defend itself without a strong central government. He noted that at that time, the smallest slight could incite a nation to war. The US shared fishing areas with Great Britain and France, and it engaged in commerce. He looked to history to see whether separate sovereignties would be sufficient to protect nation:
Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments--what armies could they raise and pay--what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by its specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquillity and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished? Although such conduct would not be wise, it would, nevertheless, be natural. The history of the states of Greece, and of other countries, abounds with such instances, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened would, under similar circumstances, happen again.
He concludes that foreign powers would be less likely to engage in war if the US had a strong efficient government that would be in charge of military forces.
Madison takes a domestic view on the advantages of ratifying the Constitution: it would prevent factions from inflicting their own desires on your life. Think about it, do you want Scientologists telling you how to live? I know I don’t. I don’t even understand their beliefs. Madison explains that there are 2 ways undermine factions: (1) controlling their causes and (2) controlling their effects. The only way to control their causes would be to take away individual liberty, which he was strongly against. As long as there is individual liberty, there will be differences of opinions and differing interests:
Madison takes a domestic view on the advantages of ratifying the Constitution: it would prevent factions from inflicting their own desires on your life. Think about it, do you want Scientologists telling you how to live? I know I don’t. I don’t even understand their beliefs. Madison explains that there are 2 ways undermine factions: (1) controlling their causes and (2) controlling their effects. The only way to control their causes would be to take away individual liberty, which he was strongly against. As long as there is individual liberty, there will be differences of opinions and differing interests:
But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. […] 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.
He noted that the role of government would be a moderator between conflicting interests, and that representatives would be able to make sound decisions for the public good. The representatives would, in essence, control the effects of conflicting factions.
How is our current government doing on that? Do you feel that your Congressmen and Senators are making wise decisions for the public good? To me, Congress is beginning to look like a 3-ring circus. They actually created a health insurance reform bill that is longer than War and Peace, full of legalese, and they expect everyone to read it in a week. Is it possible? Ummm, I have a feeling that a lot of representatives will be voting on it without reading it. How are they going to be able to decide whether voting for or against it would be best for their constituents? I’d rather have them take longer to read the legislation than vote on it without fully realizing the repercussions. I kinda feel like reading it just to see if they’re trying to sneak anything heinous by the public, but that’s my Congressman’s job. I hope he does it.
How is our current government doing on that? Do you feel that your Congressmen and Senators are making wise decisions for the public good? To me, Congress is beginning to look like a 3-ring circus. They actually created a health insurance reform bill that is longer than War and Peace, full of legalese, and they expect everyone to read it in a week. Is it possible? Ummm, I have a feeling that a lot of representatives will be voting on it without reading it. How are they going to be able to decide whether voting for or against it would be best for their constituents? I’d rather have them take longer to read the legislation than vote on it without fully realizing the repercussions. I kinda feel like reading it just to see if they’re trying to sneak anything heinous by the public, but that’s my Congressman’s job. I hope he does it.
