Summary

In order to convince the readers that a government must be at least as

energetic and strong as the one proposed, they must carefully
examine the defects of the existing government. Madison does not
expect people to accept the merits of the Constitution on faith alone.
By examining the provisions of the constitution and comparing each
provision, Madison will attempt to calculate the effects of the new
government on the nation and its citizens.
For Madison, it is one of the ironies of human affairs that important
public matters are seldom examined objectively. A new plan of
government excites passion and prejudices, not surprisingly. The
founding fathers believed those who opposed the Constitution only
briefly looked at its contents. But some who write in favor of the
Constitution are guilty of the same and much of their supportive writing
lacks substance and critical analysis.
There is, however, one critical difference between the supporters and
critics of the Constitution: those who support the Constitution
superficially usually do so because they know the existing government
is weak and the country is in a serious situation: a forgivable fault. The
critics, however, cannot be forgiven. But Madison is not writing to
either of the two biased groups. Instead, this paper is written for those
who sincerely are in favor of and want to promote the welfare of the
country and who will listen to reasonable arguments and explanations.
In order to appreciate the proposed government, you have to realize
that no plan is faultless. The Convention, like all groups, was
composed of fallible men. Fallible men drafted the Constitution and
fallible men in the end will judge it.
Madison argues that the readers must not only accept the fallibility of
men, but also try to understand the difficult task the framers faced.
What was done in Philadelphia had no precedent. The framers began
their deliberations knowing that the structure of government was weak
because the underlying principles that governed it were unsound.
They realized that they could not erect a strong structure upon a weak
foundation. Unfortunately, the principles to build the Constitution were
hard to find because the framers could not look to other confederacies
because they, too, were founded on unsound principles. Studying both
ancient and modern confederacies served only to warn them of what
should be avoided in the establishment of the new government. As a
result, the framers took as their "textbook" the experience of this and
other countries, not political theories.
One of the most important and difficult problems was how to establish
an energetic and stable government without threatening the liberties of
the people. Had the framers not solved this problem, they would have
failed. Stability in government promotes confidence and is essential to
national character. Stability is threatened if too many people hold
power, and energetic government requires that the execution of the
laws should be the responsibility of one man, the president. But in a
free society power is derived from the people and those who hold
office are responsible to them. The proposed government reconciles
and balances these two important values. Stability is achieved through
the principle of representation; liberty is protected because the
government rests upon the consent of the people. In addition, a part of
this balance was achieved by establishing relatively short terms of
office for representatives, senators, and the president.
Another problem the framers faced was how best to divide authority
and power between the state and national governments, something
that was extremely difficult. The framers also had to wrestle with the
problem of describing in specific detail the purpose and limits of
different codes of laws and types of courts. The English studied this
problem for years, but never came up with specific solutions. No
language supplies words and phrases for every complex idea or is so
precise that every word has only one meaning. The Convention also
faced other problems. The delegates had to reconcile the conflict and
competition between the large and small states, as well as the fact
that competing sectional interests had to be reconciled, as did various
economic and social conflicts within every state. These competing
interests will undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on the proposed
government, but to reconcile them during the Convention was a
difficult task.
Madison concludes that it is remarkable given all of the pressures and
difficulties that an agreement was reached at all. While it is easy for a
theorist to plan a perfect document in the privacy of his den or
imagination, for men to hammer out their differences together is
another matter. Madison attributes two factors to the success of the
Constitutional Convention: first, the framers were free of party
animosities and second, the delegates were so pleased with the final
product that they were willing to put aside certain personal objections
in order to avoid further delay or the necessity of drafting an entirely
new document.
ederalist Number 37 is the beginning of another of James Madison's
series of work. Hamilton's series of fourteen papers on the vital need
for an energetic constitution ended with Number 36, published on
January 8, 1788. On January 11, Madison commenced with 37,
explaining how the Convention had combined "energy in government
with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form."
In this division of the work so peculiarly suited to his talent he had
occasion not only to develop the federal principles of the Constitution,
but also to discuss in his own characteristic vein the various questions
that lie at the foundation of free government itself. And although
twelve of the twenty-four essays he wrote in this section have been
claimed by Hamilton, examinations of the papers themselves show
they were indubitably written by Madison.
Madison's' first two essays, not only 37 but also 38, were devoted to
the difficulties faced by the Convention in guaranteeing both the
security of the few and the liberty of the many. Madison's thoughts on
the relationship of liberty and authority are interesting, because this is
a problem that had been his chief concern since he had entered
politics. He eloquently wrote in Federalist 37, "Energy in government
is essential to that security against external and internal danger and to
that prompt and salutary execution of the law, which enter into the
very definition of good government. Stability in government is
essential to national character. . . On comparing, however, these
valuable ingredients with the vital principles of liberty, we must
perceive at once the difficulty of mingling them in their due
proportions."
While Madison complains in this Federalist paper that the founding
fathers had no guides, this is not completely true as they relied heavily
upon the philosophers of their time and of earlier times. Raynal,
Delome, Montesquieu, and Hume, are, among others, expressly
mentioned and quoted within the Federalist Papers themselves, but
these writers do not exhaust the list of those whose impact on the
Papers is obvious. Machiavelli, and Hume; Hobbes and Rousseau;
Harrington, Coke and Clackston, and above all Locke, were all
intellectual forebears of the Federalist's discussion of constitutional
democracy. While some of theses authors were fundamentally
accepted by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, others were probably
fundamentally rejected. No one philosophy was taken over completely
or, for that matter, completely rejected.
It is probably no exaggeration, however, to say that Locke exercised a
greater influence upon American political thought during the
revolutionary era than any other philosopher. His writings were the
colonists' major work of reference in their struggle with the mother
country. The Declaration of Independence was so close to theSecond
Treatise of Government in form, phraseology, and content that Jefferson
was accused of copying from it. Locke's influence can be seen in state
declarations and constitutions. His ideas were present in the
Philadelphia Convention. They played an important role thereafter, as
well. Locke is the philosopher to whom the authors of the Federalist
are most indebted for an exposition of constitutionalism and free
government.