The Original Argument

I am just back from a week long trip to Houston, Texas.  When I am in Texas I always come away with renewed hope for the potential of our country.  There is a sense when you are in Texas that all things are possible.  It is "can do" country.

While I was on the trip I bought a copy of Glenn Beck's new book, "The Original Argument", which is an updated writing of the Federalist Papers.  It takes the archaic vocabulary and sentences of the original Federalist Papers and "translates" it into contemporary English. It provides the background and arguments that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay provided to the public in late 1787 and early 1788 in order to gain the support for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

It is an amazing body of work considering that the entire work is over 175,000 words.  This is close to the length of a Harry Potter novel.  No small feat considering the fact that the writing was done with quill pens and some of the writing was done under candlelight.

Just as amazing is the background story on the development of the book.  Its genesis really started with a college student, Joshua Charles, from the University of Kansas.  Joshua "translated" Federalist 1 and sent it to some friends and family for their reaction.  He was heartened when they told him how much better they understood what the Founders were saying about their reasoning behind the Constitution.  However, there are 85 Federalist Papers.  He had translated just one.  It was a nice diversion but what would be the point of doing more.  Who would care about a 22 year-old college student's modern translation of the Federalist Papers?

It  could have ended there but shortly after he was watching the Glenn Beck show on Fox News Channel when Beck said, "We need really smart people that can take the Federalist Papers and rewrite them for the common man...If we rewrite these things in common language, people can access them a lot easier".  With nothing more than that statement, Joshua decided to complete the entire translation.  He took several months off last summer to labor over the Papers day after day to complete the project.  He took another six months of concentrated effort to get in front of Beck.  The book is the result of that effort.  The front cover carries Beck's name but Joshua Charles should receive the lion's share of the credit.

I am only part way through the book but it becomes apparent very quickly how far we have diverged from the path our Founding Fathers laid out in the Constitution. For example, Alexander Hamilton was known as one of the stauchest pro-Federalists of our Founders.  He was in favor of a strong federal government.  However, look at how he viewed the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states.   In Federalist 17, Hamilton wrote:

"Even if I allowed for the greatest amount of love of power possible for any reasonable man, I confess that I don't know of any reason why anyone of authority within the General government would ever wish to take for themselves any of the states' powers."

At the same time, Hamilton was a strong opponent of the Bill of Rights and argued in the Federalist Papers that they were unnecesary.  Why?  First, a detailed Bill of Rights was not required because these rights are endowed by our Creator. Including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution implied that somehow these rights come from the government according to Hamilton.  Second, Hamilton argued that the Constitution's scope was to be so narrow and the federal government's power so limited that a Bill of Rights was not necessary.  By including them, people might interpret that the Framers were intending the Constitution to control "all sorts or personal and private matters". 

Wow!  This was from Alexander Hamilton the Federalist, not a states rights advocate!

The Original Argument.  Check it out.  Thanks to Joshua Charles for this great work.