Alexander Hamilton Papers

The Federalist No. 1, [27 October 1787]

The Federalist No. 11

[New York, October 27, 1787]

To the People of the State of New York.

After an unequivocal2 experience of the inefficacy3 of the subsisting4 Fœderal Government, you are called upon5 to deliberate on6 a new Constitution for the United States of America. 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 the world. It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country,7 by their conduct and example, to decide8 the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from ref[l]ection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis, at which we are arrived, may with propriety be regarded as the æra in which9 that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act, may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add10 the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism to11 heighten the sollicitude, which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed12 by a judicous estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiassed by considerations not connected with the public good.13 But this is a thing more ardently to be wished,14 than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations, affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign15 to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favourable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter, may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument and consequence of the offices they hold under the State-establishments—and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandise themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies, than from its union under one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well16 aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men17 (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views:18 Candour will oblige us to admit, that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted, that much of the opposition which has made its appearance,19 or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable, the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes, which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions, of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would20 furnish a lesson of moderation of those, who are ever so much21 persuaded of their being in the right, in any controversy.22 And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection, that we are not always sure, that those who advocate the truth are influenced23 by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives, not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as upon those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more illjudged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterised political parties. For, in politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet however just these sentiments will be allowed to be,24 we have already sufficient indications, that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude, that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations, and by the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatised, as the off-spring of a temper fond of despotic25 power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An overscrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretence and artifice; the26 bait for popularity at the expence of public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of violent love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is too apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten, that the vigour of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us, that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism, than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics the greatest number have begun their carreer, by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing Demagogues and ending Tyrants.

In the course of the preceeding observations I have had an eye, my Fellow Citizens, to putting27 you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my Countrymen, I own to you, that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion, it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced, that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I effect not reserves, which I do not feel. I will not 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. I shall not however multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast: My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit, which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose in a series of papers to discuss the following interesting particulars—The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity—The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union—The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object—The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government—Its analogy to your own state constitution—and lastly, The additional security, which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty and to property.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance that may seem to have any claim to your28 attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every state, and one, which it may be imagined has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new constitution, that the Thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.* This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it.29 For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject than the alternative of an adoption of the new30 Constitution, or a dismemberment of the Union. It will31 therefore be of use to begin by examining32 the advantages of that Union, the certain evils and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.33


The [New York] Independent Journal: or, the General Advertiser, October 27, 1787. This essay appeared on October 30 in both New-York Packet and The [New York] Daily Advertiser.

2“full” is substituted for “an unequivocal” in Hopkins description begins The Federalist On The New Constitution. By Publius. Written in 1788. To Which is Added, Pacificus, on The Proclamation of Neutrality. Written in 1793. Likewise, The Federal Constitution, With All the Amendments. Revised and Corrected. In Two Volumes (New York: Printed and Sold by George F. Hopkins, at Washington’s Head, 1802). description ends .

3“insufficiency” substituted for “inefficacy” in Hopkins.

4“existing” substituted for “subsisting” in Hopkins.

5“invited” substituted for “called upon” in Hopkins.

6“upon” substituted for “on” in Hopkins.

7“to decide” is inserted here in Hopkins.

8“to decide” is omitted in Hopkins.

9“period when” is substituted for “æra in which” in Hopkins.

10“by adding” is substituted for “will add” in Hopkins.

11“will” is substituted for “to” in Hopkins description begins The Federalist On The New Constitution. By Publius. Written in 1788. To Which is Added, Pacificus, on The Proclamation of Neutrality. Written in 1793. Likewise, The Federal Constitution, With All the Amendments. Revised and Corrected. In Two Volumes (New York: Printed and Sold by George F. Hopkins, at Washington’s Head, 1802). description ends .

12In the newspaper “decided”; “directed” was substituted in McLean description begins The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, As Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. In Two Volumes (New York: Printed and Sold by J. and A. McLean, 1788). description ends and Hopkins.

13“uninfluenced by considerations foreign to the public good” is substituted for “unperplexed” through “good” in Hopkins.

14“for” is inserted at this point in Hopkins.

15“extraneous” is substituted for “foreign” in Hopkins.

16“well” omitted in Hopkins.

17“into interested or ambitious views” inserted here in Hopkins.

18“into” through “views” omitted in Hopkins.

19“already shown itself” substituted for “made its appearance” in Hopkins.

20“always” inserted at this point in Hopkins.

21“thoroughly” substituted for “much” in McLean.

22“who are engaged in any controversy, however well persuaded of being in the right” substituted for the words “who” through “controversy” in Hopkins.

23“actuated” substituted for “influenced” in Hopkins.

24“And yet, just as these sentiments must appear to candid men,” substituted for “And” through “to be” in Hopkins.

25This word omitted in Hopkins.

26“stale” inserted here in McLean and Hopkins.

27“it has been my aim, fellow citizens to put” substituted for “I” through “putting” in Hopkins.

28This word omitted in Hopkins.

29“its open avowal” substituted for “an” through “it” in Hopkins.

30“new” omitted in Hopkins.

31“may” substituted for “will” in Hopkins.

32“essential to examine particularly” substituted for “of use” through “examining” in Hopkins.

33“be done” substituted for “constitute” through “address” in Hopkins.

Authorial notes

[The following note(s) appeared in the margins or otherwise outside the text flow in the original source, and have been moved here for purposes of the digital edition.]

* The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the New Constitution.

Index Entries