Federalist Paper #1:
Call to Citizens to Study New Constitution
Alexander Hamilton
October 27, 1787
Having experienced the undeniable inefficiency of
the existing federal government, you are asked to
study and consider adopting a new Constitution for
the United States of America.
The importance of this deliberation can not be
overstated. The very existence of our country
hangs in the balance, as does the safety and
welfare of its people, communities, and States. We
are called to decide the fate of a nation that is, in
many respects, the most interesting in the world.
It has been often said that the people of this
country will decide the important question of
whether societies can establish a good government
by careful thought and choice. Or whether people
are forever destined to be governed only by
accident and force. If this is true, the answer
depends on our response to the current crisis. And
the wrong decision deserves to be considered a
misfortune for all of mankind.
[2] Variety of Interests Influence Debate
Conscientious patriots understand the weighty
importance of deciding whether to adopt the new
Constitution. Knowing their decision will affect all
human societies raises their anxiety.
It would be wonderful if we based our decision only
on the best interests of our society, unbiased by
less noble interests unconnected with the public
good. Although we may ardently wish this, it can’t
be seriously expected. The Constitution offered for
consideration affects too many special interests
and changes too many local institutions not to
expect discussions on subjects other than its
merits. Views, passions and prejudices unrelated to
discovering the truth and meaning of the document
are expected.
[3] Opposition From Politicians
Politicians will present some of the most formidable
obstacles to the new Constitution. Some will resist
any change that might diminish the power and
benefits of their current State offices. The perverted
ambition of others will see potential selfaggrandizement within a country in disarray. Or will
flatter themselves into believing they can rise to a
higher level of power within an alliance of several
States than within a union under one government.
[4] Moderation Urged
However, I don’t plan to dwell on observations of
this nature. It would be presumptuous for me to
indiscriminately declare a person’s opposition due
to self-interest or ambitious views merely because
their situation might subject them to suspicion.
Candidly, we admit even politicians may be
motivated by upright intentions. And, undoubtedly,
much of the opposition will spring from blameless, if
not valid, motivations. Preconceived jealousies and
fears will lead arguments astray into honest errors
in thinking.
Indeed, so many powerful reasons can create a
false bias that there are often wise and good men
arguing on both the wrong and right side of
society’s most important questions. This reality
should furnish a lesson of moderation to anyone
who thinks they are always in the right in any
controversy.
A further reason for caution—we are not always
sure that people who advocate the truth are
influenced by purer principles than their
antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity,
party opposition, and many other motives no more
laudable than these, operate as well on those who
support, as those who oppose, the right side of a
question.
Moderation is important. Nothing is more repugnant
than the intolerant spirit that has, at all times,
characterized political parties. In politics, as in
religion, it’s absurd to aim at making proselytes by
fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be
cured by persecution.
[5] Constitution Called Thief of Liberty
Despite these arguments, a torrent of angry and
malignant passions will be let loose about this
subject, as in all former cases of great national
debate. To judge from the conduct of the
opponents of the new Constitution, we will conclude
that they hope to show evidence of the justness of
their opinions and increase the number of their
converts by the loudness of their rhetoric and the
bitterness of their denunciations.
Those who argue with enlightened zeal for the
energy and efficiency of government will be
demonized as being fond of despotic power and
hostile to liberty. When supporters profess that the
rights of the people must be scrupulously protected,
it will be characterized as insincere, a blatant bid for
popularity at the expense of the public good.
It will be forgotten that dangers to the rights of
people most commonly spring from the head rather
than the heart, that the noble enthusiasm of liberty
is apt to be infected with narrow-minded bigotry and
distrust.
It will also be forgotten that a vital government is
essential to secure liberty. Sound judgment shows
these can never be separated. And dangerous
ambition more often lurks behind the specious
mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under
the zeal for a firm and efficient government. History
teaches us that of the men who have overturned
the liberties of republics, most began their career
by proclaiming their devotion to the people. They
gain position by arousing people’s prejudices and
end as tyrants.
[6] My Support of New Constitution
As I wrote the above I’ve tried, my fellow citizens, to
put you on guard against all attempts, from
whatever quarter, to influence you. Your decision
on the new Constitution, of the highest importance
to your welfare, should result from the evidence of
truth.
I’m sure you have noticed that I am not unfriendly
to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I
admit that after having given it attentive
consideration, I believe it is in your interest to adopt
it. I am convinced 14
that this is the safest course for your liberty, your
dignity, and your happiness.
I don’t pretend to have reservations I don‘t feel. I
won’t amuse you with an appearance of
deliberation when I have decided. I frankly
acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely
lay before you the reasons on which they are
founded. The consciousness of good intentions
disdains ambiguity.
The new Constitution has my full and unambiguous
support. I shall not, however, dwell on professions
of my faith in it. And my motives must remain in my
heart.
My arguments will be offered in the spirit of
presenting the truth. They will be open to all and
may be judged by all.
[7] Discussion of Constitutional Issues
I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the
following interesting particulars:
The usefulness of a successful federal government
to the union.
The insufficiency of the present Confederation to
preserve the union.
The necessity of a federal government at least as
energetic as the one proposed in the Constitution to
attain this objective.
The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the
true principles of republican government.
Its analogy to the New York constitution.
And the additional security its adoption will afford to
the preservation of the republican form of
government, to liberty, and to property.
As this discussion progresses, I will endeavor to
give satisfactory answers to objections that arise
and may claim your attention.
[8] Opponents: Thirteen States Too Big
Arguments proving the utility of the union may be
thought superfluous. The importance of the union
may be seen as deeply engraved on the hearts of
the people in every State, with no adversaries. But
the fact is, we already hear it whispered among
those who oppose the new Constitution that
thirteen States are too many for any general
system. They argue that we must break into several
separate confederacies.∗
This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually
propagated until it has enough votes to approve it.
To those who take an enlarged view of the subject,
nothing is more evident than that the alternative to
adoption of the new Constitution is dismemberment
of the Union.
Therefore, it will be useful to examine the
advantages of the Union, and the probable dangers
and certain evils to which every State will be
exposed from its dissolution. Accordingly, this will
constitute the subject of my next editorial.