Article #18-1 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from The Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton

It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature,
but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes
requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be
obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from
apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those
persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and
there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the
secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the
Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly. The
convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of
making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act
by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage
the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest.

They who have turned their attention to the affairs of men, must have
perceived that there are tides in them; tides very irregular in their
duration, strength, and direction, and seldom found to run twice
exactly in the same manner or measure. To discern and to profit by
these tides in national affairs is the business of those who preside
over them; and they who have had much experience on this head inform
us, that there frequently are occasions when days, nay, even when
hours, are precious. The loss of a battle, the death of a prince, the
removal of a minister, or other circumstances intervening to change the
present posture and aspect of affairs, may turn the most favorable tide
into a course opposite to our wishes. As in the field, so in the
cabinet, there are moments to be seized as they pass, and they who
preside in either should be left in capacity to improve them. So often
and so essentially have we heretofore suffered from the want of secrecy
and despatch, that the Constitution would have been inexcusably
defective, if no attention had been paid to those objects. Those
matters which in negotiations usually require the most secrecy and the
most despatch, are those preparatory and auxiliary measures which are
not otherwise important in a national view, than as they tend to
facilitate the attainment of the objects of the negotiation. For these,
the President will find no difficulty to provide; and should any
circumstance occur which requires the advice and consent of the Senate,
he may at any time convene them. Thus we see that the Constitution
provides that our negotiations for treaties shall have every advantage
which can be derived from talents, information, integrity, and
deliberate investigations, on the one hand, and from secrecy and
despatch on the other.

But to this plan, as to most others that have ever appeared, objections
are contrived and urged.

Explanation

**Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The Federalist Papers (No. 64) by Alexander Hamilton**

Context of the Source

The Federalist Papers (1787–1788) were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius" to persuade the people of New York (and the broader American public) to ratify the newly proposed U.S. Constitution. This excerpt comes from Federalist No. 64, authored by Hamilton, which focuses on the treaty-making power of the executive branch—specifically, the role of the President and the Senate in negotiating treaties.

At the time, there was significant debate over how much power the federal government should have, particularly in foreign affairs. Some feared that giving too much authority to the President (a single individual) could lead to tyranny, while others (like Hamilton) argued that efficiency, secrecy, and decisiveness were necessary for effective diplomacy. This essay defends the Constitution’s provision that the President negotiates treaties with the "advice and consent" of the Senate (a two-thirds majority required for ratification), rather than involving the entire Congress.

Breakdown of the Excerpt

1. The Necessity of Secrecy and Dispatch in Diplomacy

"It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery."

Key Argument: Hamilton asserts that secrecy and speed are often crucial in diplomacy.
- Secrecy: If informants (whether motivated by money or goodwill) fear exposure, they may withhold critical information.
- Dispatch (Speed): Delays can ruin opportunities—diplomatic moments are fleeting.
Literary Device:
- Parallelism ("perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH") emphasizes the two essential qualities.
- Conditional Logic ("if... then") suggests that without secrecy, intelligence sources dry up.

"Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly."

Key Argument:
- People with sensitive information (spies, diplomats, allies) trust a single executive (the President) more than a large body (Senate or Congress).
- Why? Fewer people = fewer leaks. A "large popular Assembly" (like the House of Representatives) is seen as too unwieldy and prone to indiscretion.
Themes:
- Distrust of Democratic Bodies in Foreign Policy: Hamilton suggests that democratic deliberation is slow and insecure—better for domestic legislation than for sensitive negotiations.
- Elitism: Implies that expertise and discretion (traits of a President) are superior to the passions of a crowd.
Literary Device:
- Gradation ("President" → "Senate" → "large popular Assembly") shows increasing distrust in larger bodies.

"The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest."

Key Argument:
- The Constitutional compromise (President negotiates, Senate ratifies) is practical.
- The President can gather intelligence secretly while still needing Senate approval for final treaties—balancing efficiency with checks.

2. The "Tides" of National Affairs: Timing and Opportunity

"They who have turned their attention to the affairs of men, must have perceived that there are tides in them; tides very irregular in their duration, strength, and direction, and seldom found to run twice exactly in the same manner or measure."

Key Argument:
- Metaphor of "tides" compares diplomacy to unpredictable natural forces.
- Opportunities in foreign affairs are fleeting and irregular—miss one, and it may never return the same way.
Literary Device:
- Extended Metaphor ("tides") reinforces the idea that diplomacy requires adaptability and quick action.

"To discern and to profit by these tides in national affairs is the business of those who preside over them; and they who have had much experience on this head inform us, that there frequently are occasions when days, nay, even when hours, are precious."

Key Argument:
- Leaders must act decisively—sometimes within hours—or risk losing advantage.
- Example: A sudden shift (death of a leader, battle loss, coup) can reverse fortunes.
Themes:
- Realpolitik: Diplomacy is about seizing moments, not idealistic debate.
- Distrust of Bureaucracy: Large bodies (like Congress) cannot act fast enough.

"The loss of a battle, the death of a prince, the removal of a minister, or other circumstances intervening to change the present posture and aspect of affairs, may turn the most favorable tide into a course opposite to our wishes."

Key Argument:
- Historical examples (deaths, battles, political changes) show how quickly situations reverse.
- Implication: A slow-moving Senate or Congress would miss critical windows.
Literary Device:
- Asyndeton (omitting "and" before the last item) speeds up the list, mirroring the urgency of the situations described.

"As in the field, so in the cabinet, there are moments to be seized as they pass, and they who preside in either should be left in capacity to improve them."

Key Argument:
- War and diplomacy are alike—both require quick, decisive action.
- The President (like a general) must have autonomy to act without bureaucratic delay.
Literary Device:
- Analogy (war cabinet = military field) strengthens the case for executive power.

3. Historical Justification: Past Failures Due to Lack of Secrecy and Speed

"So often and so essentially have we heretofore suffered from the want of secrecy and despatch, that the Constitution would have been inexcusably defective, if no attention had been paid to those objects."

Key Argument:
- Under the Articles of Confederation (pre-Constitution), America suffered because Congress was too slow and leaky.
- The new Constitution fixes this flaw by giving the President more control over intelligence and negotiations.
Themes:
- Lessons from History: The Articles of Confederation failed—the Constitution must not repeat its mistakes.
- Pragmatism over Idealism: Hamilton prioritizes effectiveness over democratic purity.

"Those matters which in negotiations usually require the most secrecy and the most despatch, are those preparatory and auxiliary measures which are not otherwise important in a national view, than as they tend to facilitate the attainment of the objects of the negotiation."

Key Argument:
- Small, preliminary steps (backchannel talks, intelligence-gathering) are crucial but sensitive.
- The President can handle these without Senate interference, only bringing them in for major decisions.

"For these, the President will find no difficulty to provide; and should any circumstance occur which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, he may at any time convene them."

Key Argument:
- The system is flexible:
  - President acts independently on minor matters.
  - Senate is available when needed for big decisions.

"Thus we see that the Constitution provides that our negotiations for treaties shall have every advantage which can be derived from talents, information, integrity, and deliberate investigations, on the one hand, and from secrecy and despatch on the other."

Key Argument:
- The Constitution balances:
  - Senate’s wisdom (deliberation, checks).
  - President’s agility (secrecy, speed).
- Best of both worlds: Efficiency + accountability.

4. Anticipating Objections (Rhetorical Strategy)

"But to this plan, as to most others that have ever appeared, objections are contrived and urged."

Key Argument:
- Hamilton acknowledges critics (a common rhetorical move in The Federalist Papers).
- He implies that opposition is expected but unfounded—setting up a rebuttal in later paragraphs (not included here).
Themes:
- Persuasion Technique: By preempting objections, Hamilton makes his case seem more reasonable.

Significance of the Excerpt

Defense of Executive Power in Foreign Policy
- Hamilton argues that diplomacy requires a strong, agile executive—a single decision-maker (the President) rather than a slow, divided legislature.
- This became a foundation for American foreign policy, justifying presidential dominance in treaty-making and intelligence.
Distrust of Direct Democracy in Diplomacy
- Hamilton fears mob rule and leaks—he believes elite expertise (President + Senate) is better than popular assemblies.
- This reflects 18th-century republicanism, which balanced democracy with aristocratic elements (e.g., Senate as a "cooling saucer").
Pragmatism Over Idealism
- The Articles of Confederation failed because it was too democratic and slow—Hamilton learns from this.
- The Constitution’s compromise (President negotiates, Senate ratifies) is practical, not purely theoretical.
Influence on Later U.S. Foreign Policy
- This logic was later used to justify:
  - Presidential war powers (e.g., Truman in Korea, Bush in Iraq).
  - Covert operations (CIA, NSA secrecy).
  - Fast-track trade authority (President negotiates, Congress approves/disapproves).
Debate Over Checks and Balances
- Critics (like Anti-Federalists) feared this gave the President too much power.
- Modern debates (e.g., War Powers Act, NSA surveillance) still grapple with Hamilton’s trade-off: efficiency vs. accountability.

Literary and Rhetorical Devices Summary

Device	Example	Effect
Metaphor	"Tides in national affairs"	Makes diplomacy seem natural, unpredictable, and urgent.
Parallelism	"perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH"	Emphasizes two key traits needed in diplomacy.
Gradation	President → Senate → "large popular Assembly"	Shows increasing distrust in larger bodies.
Asyndeton	"The loss of a battle, the death of a prince, the removal of a minister"	Creates urgency and rhythm, mirroring fast-changing events.
Analogy	"As in the field, so in the cabinet"	Compares war and diplomacy to justify executive power.
Preemptive Rebuttal	"But to this plan... objections are contrived"	Strengthens his argument by acknowledging critics.

Conclusion: Hamilton’s Vision of Foreign Policy

Hamilton’s excerpt is a masterclass in persuasive political writing, blending:

Historical lessons (failures under the Articles of Confederation).
Practical arguments (secrecy, speed, flexibility).
Rhetorical skill (metaphors, analogies, preemptive rebuttals).

His core belief: Foreign policy is too delicate for pure democracy—it requires a strong executive, swift action, and secrecy. This perspective shaped the U.S. Constitution and continues to influence debates on presidential power, intelligence agencies, and war authority today.

Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspect (e.g., Anti-Federalist counterarguments, modern applications)?

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s use of the metaphor "tides in national affairs" primarily serves to:

A. underscore the unpredictability and ephemeral nature of diplomatic opportunities, necessitating a leadership structure capable of rapid, adaptive response.
B. evoke a sense of natural inevitability in geopolitical shifts, implying that treaties should align with these immutable forces rather than resist them.
C. contrast the cyclical patterns of domestic politics with the linear progression of international negotiations, favoring the latter’s stability.
D. criticize the Senate’s tendency to act only when political currents are favorable, thereby missing critical moments for decisive action.
E. suggest that, like ocean tides, diplomatic success is determined by external forces beyond human control, rendering proactive leadership futile.

Question 2

The passage’s distinction between the President’s ability to "manage the business of intelligence" and the Senate’s role in treaty ratification most closely reflects which underlying assumption about governance?

A. That intelligence operations are inherently corrupting and thus must be isolated from the legislative branch to preserve democratic integrity.
B. That the Senate’s primary function is to serve as a rubber stamp for executive decisions, given its inability to act with sufficient secrecy.
C. That the separation of powers is flawed when applied to foreign policy, as unity of command is the only viable model.
D. That different phases of treaty-making require different institutional strengths: agility and discretion in preparation, deliberation and legitimacy in ratification.
E. That the President’s constitutional authority in foreign affairs is derived from an implicit social contract with informants, not from formal legal structures.

Question 3

When Hamilton states that "there doubtless are many of both descriptions [mercenary or friendly motives] who would rely on the secrecy of the President," his rhetorical strategy primarily aims to:

A. appeal to the reader’s sense of patriotism by implying that even self-interested actors can serve the national interest if properly managed.
B. undermine the moral character of potential informants, suggesting that their motivations are irrelevant to the structural need for secrecy.
C. propose a psychological theory of trust, wherein individuals inherently distrust collective bodies more than individual leaders.
D. introduce a false dichotomy between "mercenary" and "friendly" motives to simplify the complex realities of diplomatic intelligence-gathering.
E. preemptively neutralize objections rooted in distrust of executive power by acknowledging that secrecy serves pragmatic, non-ideological ends.

Question 4

The passage’s assertion that "the Constitution would have been inexcusably defective" if it failed to address secrecy and dispatch implies which of the following about the Framers’ priorities?

A. That they viewed foreign policy as a secondary concern, only addressed to placate critics of the Articles of Confederation.
B. That they considered the risks of executive overreach in diplomacy to be outweighed by the risks of legislative inefficiency.
C. That they believed the Senate’s advice-and-consent role was a mere formality, with real power residing in the President’s unilateral authority.
D. That they intended for the treaty-making process to be entirely shielded from public scrutiny, even after ratification.
E. That they treated the lessons of past diplomatic failures under the Articles as empirical evidence justifying a departure from pure republican principles.

Question 5

The final sentence of the passage—"Thus we see that the Constitution provides that our negotiations for treaties shall have every advantage which can be derived from talents, information, integrity, and deliberate investigations, on the one hand, and from secrecy and despatch on the other"—is structurally analogous to which of the following arguments?

A. A utilitarian calculation that the benefits of executive flexibility outweigh the risks of abuse, provided that safeguards like Senate ratification exist.
B. A categorical imperative that secrecy in diplomacy is a moral duty, regardless of its practical consequences.
C. A slippery-slope fallacy warning that any limitation on executive secrecy will inevitably lead to national security disasters.
D. A tautology that defines effective diplomacy as whatever the Constitution permits, rendering the argument circular.
E. A synthesis of thesis and antithesis, wherein the Constitution mediates between the need for expert judgment (Senate) and operational efficiency (President), resolving an inherent tension in republican governance.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: A

Why A is most correct: The "tides" metaphor is deployed to emphasize the unpredictable, fleeting nature of diplomatic opportunities, which demand a leadership structure (i.e., the President) capable of rapid, adaptive responses. The passage explicitly ties this imagery to the need for "secrecy and dispatch," reinforcing that moments must be "seized as they pass." This aligns with Hamilton’s broader argument that executive agility is non-negotiable in foreign affairs. The metaphor’s fluidity and irregularity mirror the contingency of geopolitical advantage, which a slow or divided system (like the Senate or a popular assembly) would fail to exploit.