The Federalist Papers

Introduction

Among the most effective of the instrumentalities which were employed in the overthrow of the royal authority within the Thirteen United Colonies of America was the public press; and in the proceedings which led subsequently to the establishment of “The Constitution for the United States” between the several states which assented thereto, the same powerful agent was again brought into action, both by the supporters and by the opponents of that instrument.

In the latter memorable contest, quite as much as in the former, the public newspaper press, in all parts of the Union, teemed with anonymous political papers of great merit, in the preparation of which some of the finest intellects in America had found employment; and at no other period, not even in the memorable days of “The Whig Club,” had the judgment of the people been instructed with more profound ability, or its action directed with greater wisdom.

Among the manifold productions of the press, on the occasion referred to, none were received with more general respect, and none have been preserved and referred to with more satisfaction, than those over the signature of “Publius,” which found their way into the periodical press of the city of New York in the fall of 1787 and during the following winter and spring.

At that time, and on the question of approving and assenting to the proposed “Constitution for the United States,” the State of New York occupied a peculiar position; and on her decision of the question of its acceptance and ratification, to a greater extent than on that of any other state, depended the future welfare of the United States, and the place, if any, which they should occupy in the great family of nations.

Within the borders of New York, and among her members, had originated the greater number of the measures which had led to the War of the Revolution; and, inspired by her example, and encouraged by her success—not unfrequently, also, directed by her popular leaders—her twelve associates had learned, at an early date, to look to her as to a leader, in the assertion of their own political rights, as well as in the more decided opposition which, from time to time, they had made to the representatives and to the measures of the sovereign.

In the protracted struggle for independence which had ensued, her inhabitants had suffered more from the enemy, and during a longer period, than those of any other state; and her territory—which had been held by the Sovereign of Great Britain from an early day, by right of conquest—was the last which had been abandoned by the royal forces—nor, even then, had it been fully and formally surrendered, in the mode which had been prescribed by the military usage of that day.

Of the thirteen members of the sisterhood of states, after the war had been terminated in an honorable peace, New York alone had discharged all her financial obligations to the United States; and when the failure of her sister states to meet the requisitions of the Federal Congress had produced disaster, and had threatened the worst results, she had not hesitated to make still further payments into the Foederal treasury, in anticipation of future requisitions—her people, meanwhile, sustaining her government in its devotion to the Union, and the inhabitants of her extended territory, from the wrecks of their fortunes and from the current fruits of their labors and of their enterprise, as promptly supplying the means for the consummation of her purposes.

At length, wearied with the continued shortcomings of her sister states, and, probably, aroused by the frequent insults and threats of dismemberment which had been freely indulged in by more than one of her immediate neighbors—all of whom had envied her rising greatness, without at any time aspiring to her fidelity to the Federal compact—on the suggestion of one of the most distinguished and most patriotic, but most maligned, of her citizens, New York had been the first to propose measures for a complete revision of the Federal Constitution.

In this hazardous undertaking, however, while she had steadily sought the extension of sufficient authority to the Federal Congress to render the existing government entirely efficient for the purposes for which it had been organized, New York had never lost sight of her own dignity, nor ceased to guard, in the most careful manner, all her rights as a free, sovereign, and independent commonwealth. Accordingly, while she had steadily sought the delegation, by the several constituent states of the Confederacy, of sufficient authority to the Federal Congress to maintain the credit of the United States, to pay their obligations, and, generally, to execute its duties with more efficiency and despatch, she had as steadily opposed every movement which might be construed to imply a surrender of the prerogatives of her sovereignty, or which, in the future, might be considered as her approval of a centralization of “the right to command”; and every proposition which possibly might serve at any time to obliterate the lines of the several states, or to consolidate the thirteen distinct peoples and sovereignties which then existed within the Union, into one people, one nation, one sovereignty, was vigorously opposed both by her members and her Government.

Governed by these well-known sentiments, and sustained by so jealous a constituency, it need not be wondered at, that the delegation from New York in the Federal Convention—a body which had originated in the action of the Legislature of that state, several months before—had firmly disapproved the pretensions, and resolutely opposed the designs, of several of the states, in the formation of a new constitution; or that, when the simple result which she had proposed had been found unattainable, two of the three gentlemen who composed her delegation in that Convention had considered it their duty to withdraw from its sessions, leaving her without a legal representation in that assembly, and throwing the entire responsibility of the result of its deliberations on the eleven states which had remained therein. Nor need it excite any surprise that, from that time forth, the opposition to the proposed “Constitution for the United States” had been nowhere so determined, so general, or so completely organized as in the State of New York; and that in no other state had that opposition been directed by so formidable an array of leaders, each of whom had been so entirely, so consistently, so effectively, or, during so long a period, identified with the best interests of the state and of the Union. So thoroughly, indeed, had the opposition to the proposed constitution been organized in that state, and with so much skill had it been directed by the experienced popular leaders, that the impending political crisis appears to have been fully understood, even while the Federal Convention was yet engaged in the discussion of the various projects of its members; and, through the newspapers of the day, as well as through tracts which had been prepared for the purpose, the fundamental principles of Governmental science, the existing necessities of the United States, and the relative rights and duties of the constituent states and of the Union, had been discussed before the people, with marked ability and the utmost diligence.

The termination of the labors of the Federal Convention, and the promulgation of its proposed plan of government, served rather to concentrate than to diminish the strength of the opposition; and, thenceforth, from every county in the state, the arguments and appeals of the “Anti-Federalists”—as the States’-Rights party of that day was subsequently called—were hurled against the devoted instrument, without ceasing, and with the most relentless severity.

On Thursday, the twenty-seventh day of September, 1787, the same day on which the draught of the proposed constitution had been promulgated in the city of New York, and side by side with that document in The New York Journal—the ancient organ of “The Sons of Liberty” in that city—there had also appeared the first of a series of powerfully written essays, over the signature of “Cato,” in which the condemnation of the proposed form of government had been pronounced in the most emphatic terms. This antagonistic effusion, a few days afterwards, had been seconded in the same paper by the first of another series, even more ably written than the former, over the signature of “Brutus”—probably from the pen of one of the most accomplished statesmen of that period, who was also one of the most elegant writers of the day; while, in an “extraordinary” sheet of the same Journal, on the same day, there had also appeared the first number of a third series, over the signature of “Centinel,” which had been copied from the Philadelphia press, in which also the action of the Convention had been handled with great severity. Still later, “Cincinnatus” supported the assault; and “Brutus, Jr.,” “A Son of Liberty,” “Observer,” “An Officer of the Continental Army,” “Medium,” “A Countryman” (Duchess County), “A Citizen,” “An Old Whig,” “A Countryman” (Orange County), “One of the Common People,” and other writers, in the same and other newspapers of the day, and in rapid succession, sustained the same cause, with great acuteness and ability. Tracts, also, in opposition to the proposed constitution, were prepared, both in New York and Albany, for distribution in New York and Connecticut, possibly in other states; and through the ancient organization of “The Sons of Liberty,” practically revived under its former leaders, Colonels John Lamb and Marinus Willett, the most thoroughly organized opposition confronted the friends of the proposed constitution, in every part of the state, and rendered their undertaking a desperate one.

At the same time, while the opponents of the “new system”—harmonious in their sentiments and united in their action—were thus resolutely and skilfully resisting it throughout the state, its nominal friends were widely separated in their sentiments; and, in many cases, they were apathetic, if not discordant, in their action. At best, they were only few in number, when compared with their adversaries; and, in the lukewarmness of some of them, and in the entire inaction of others of their number, there was little to afford encouragement, nothing to insure success.

But, not alone by reason of the apathy and the discord which existed among the nominal friends of the proposed constitution, nor of the harmonious and energetic opposition of those who disapproved its provisions, nor of the numerical weakness of the former when compared with the strength and perfect organization of the latter, was the position which New York then occupied so peculiar, and at the same time so important.

Possessing a territory which extended from the Atlantic seaboard to the southernmost bounds of the British possessions in America, it was within the power of New York, entirely and absolutely, to separate New England from every other portion of the United States; and it remained for her alone to determine—even in opposition to the expressed wills of her twelve sister states—whether or not the territories of the United States should, thenceforth, be severed by the intervening territory of a foreign sovereign republic; whether or not the Union, thenceforth, should be maintained, if maintained at all, between twelve distinct commonwealths, occupying not only distinct, but detached territories.

The peculiarity of her geographical position, therefore, the rising importance of her commerce, the acknowledged intelligence and enterprise of her inhabitants, the great ability and fearlessness of her statesmen and popular leaders, the widely spread influence of her political action in former days, not yet wholly forgotten, and her unflinching devotion to the then existing Union of the states, had rendered it important, in the highest degree, that New York should assent to the proposed “Constitution for the United States”; while, on the other hand, her undeviating opposition to any centralization of political powers within the federal government, which the constituent states, as such, could not entirely control, her uncompromising adherence to her rights as a free, sovereign, and independent republic, the unanimity of her well-tried popular leaders and of her inhabitants, in opposition to the proposed constitution, and the perfect organization of her citizens, in every county throughout the state, to prevent the official approval of that instrument, had indicated that the task of securing that approval of the Constitution, in the form which it then possessed, would be difficult, if not impossible.

It need not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that while the best friends of the new Constitution, throughout the Union, had desired the organization of measures for securing the assent and approval of the State of New York to that instrument, there were but few among her citizens who were inclined, and a still smaller number who were qualified, from their associations and their acquirements, to come before the people, and to undertake that delicate but arduous duty.

Robert R. Livingston—firm and patriotic, and possessed of abundant abilities—had evinced, in public, but little interest in the subject. His social position and his high attainments would have amply qualified him for a leader of the people of his native state, in any political emergency, had not an overpowering love of ease prevailed over every other trait in his character, withdrawn him as far as possible from public duties, and rendered him dilatory and uncertain.

James Duane’s sympathy with the royal authorities in colonial New York; his collusion with Lieutenant-Governor Colden to frustrate the earlier efforts of his neighbors and fellow-citizens, while the latter were struggling with the Crown for their original political rights; and his concerted opposition to the measures which had been recommended by the Continental Congress of 1774, of which body he had been an active but unworthy member—had disqualified him for any position through which the people was to be controlled in its political action, and rendered useless any efforts which he might make in a cause which was dependent for its ultimate success on the sympathy of the great body of the people of New York.

John Jay, a long-tried and faithful servant of the state and of the Congress, was also a native and a citizen of New York, but, like the greater number of the leading friends of the proposed constitution in that state, he was not adapted for leadership in its support and establishment. Descended from one of the most respectable families in the Province, an eminent and highly successful member of its bar, from an early age an active participant in the momentous political events which had rendered New York so distinguished among the republics which formed “the new constellation” in America, an acute and remarkably successful diplomatist, candid, above most of his associates, in the declaration of his carefully considered sentiments, and resolute and untiring above all of them in seeking an open and unequivocal accomplishment of his well-conceived purposes, he nevertheless failed—if he ever tried—to secure the hearty sympathy of the masses of his countrymen, and was not qualified to direct them in any struggle whatever. Taking an abstract and self-evident truth as the basis of his argument, he was accustomed to reason independently and boldly for the right, per se, without regarding or respecting the opinions of those with whom he was associated; and with equal boldness, and with an energy which scorned fatigue, he pushed forward to the front, for the establishment of his own principles, without swerving either to the right or to the left, alike irrespective of the movements of his associates and of the prejudices and sympathies and personal or local interests of those whom they led. While his great abilities, the value of his public services, and his personal integrity were freely recognized by all, the greater number of his fellow-citizens considered him selfish, impracticable, and aristocratic; and some portions of his earlier political action—at that time remembered by many of his opponents—his generally reserved manner, and his evident want of fellowship with the great body of the people, gave color to the popular opinion concerning him, and impaired his influence and his usefulness.

In the discussion of the great question which attracted the attention of the people of the State of New York, at the period referred to, Mr. Jay’s inclination does not appear to have led him to take any part whatever, nor does the people appear to have looked to him for either counsel or personal leadership. His well-known and freely acknowledged preference for a complete centralization of all political power—even to the extent of dissolving the political and constituent powers of the several states, of reducing them to the grade of counties, and of making them entirely dependent, even for their nominal existence and for their local officers, on the will of a consolidated, national government—having received no favorable consideration in the Federal Convention, he had found little in the proposed Constitution which he could commend, and nothing for which he could labor.

The responsibility, therefore, as well as the greater portion of the labor, which attended the organization of the friends of the new Constitution—scattered throughout the state, the direction of their feeble efforts, and the general conduct of the struggle in this, the principal battlefield for “the new system,” necessarily devolved on Alexander Hamilton—a gentleman whose record was one of honorable and patriotic service; whose voice had never been raised in behalf of political oppression, or in extenuation of official dishonor; in whom the people of New York had often placed confidence, and by whom it had never been betrayed; whose great abilities, indomitable energy, and never-failing tact had seldom been questioned and never surpassed. Deeply read in that portion of the literature of ancient and modern times which pertained to his studies as one of the rising statesmen of America, and personally acquainted, in all their minutiae, with the politics and politicians of New York—then as complicated as they ever have been since that period; a close observer of current events, and fertile in resources for the instantaneous seizure and improvement of passing opportunities, which promised advantage to his cause or to his party; well versed in all the intricacies of the law, and skilled beyond the greater number of his contemporaries in all the graces of elocution; distinguished in arms, in civil life without reproach—he was, above all others of his party, the best qualified for a popular leader, and a champion, before the people of his adopted state, of the new, and widely abused, Constitution.

It is evident that among the subjects antagonistic to “the new system,” which had arrested the attention of Colonel Hamilton at an early day, had been the two series of essays, over the signatures of “Cato” and “Brutus” respectively, to which reference has been made; and that he had promptly determined on measures which, he supposed, would counteract the bad effects which those essays were so well calculated to produce, among the people of the State of New York, to whom they had been specifically addressed.

Without any unnecessary waste of time, he appears to have taken a rapid survey of the general subject, and of the peculiar plan of operations—developed in the earlier numbers of their essays—which the able leaders of the States’-Rights, or anti-constitutional party in New York had adopted, in their well-digested opposition to “the new system,” and he resolved to employ the same potential agency which they had employed—the newspaper press—and, if possible, the same sheets, for the dissemination of sentiments which, he hoped, would counteract the arguments of his opponents, and lead the people of the State of New York to accede to the proposed Constitution. It is evident, also, that, with that tact which formed so prominent a trait of his character, Colonel Hamilton resolved, in view of the sturdy attachment of the inhabitants of New York to the Confederated Union of the Thirteen United States which then existed, to avoid the charge which had been brought against the friends of the proposed Constitution, of a latent desire to dissolve that Union and to consolidate the thirteen peoples of which it was constituted into one nation, under a single government, by a bold and unequivocal defence of that Union, per se, and by a countercharge on his opponents, of the existence among them of a secret purpose to dissolve that Union, and to establish in its stead two or more “petty confederacies.” It is evident, also, that he resolved to appeal to the cupidity of the commercial classes—with whose well-known tendency to conservatism, at all times, he was well acquainted—by assuming that the immediate adoption of the proposed Constitution, without amendment, by the State of New York, was necessary in order to preserve the Union from disruption, and the State from anarchy, if not from dismemberment and annihilation; that a peremptory rejection of it by the State of New York, or a prolonged delay in ratifying it, which would be necessary if a previous revision of the instrument should be demanded by that state, would be productive of the most serious evils, both to the State and to the Union; and that the derangement of the Federal finances was the legitimate result of a radical defect in the Articles of Confederation; while the apparent stagnation of trade—the necessary consequence of an oversupply of goods and of an undue proportion of vendors when compared with the aggregate of the population—by being magnified to such an extent, and presented in such a manner, as to make them appear as the necessary results of a defective form of Government, he hoped, might also afford him great assistance as an introduction both to his projected condemnation of the existing Federal system, and to his proposed appeal in behalf of “the new Constitution.”

A plan of operations which was so well adapted to produce confusion in the ranks of those who opposed “the new system,” and to shake the confidence which the people of the State of New York had reposed in the arguments of its leaders, needed only a careful elaboration of its details, and a prompt and energetic execution of its different parts, to insure some degree of success. To secure these, Colonel Hamilton appears to have sought the assistance of those whose peculiar qualifications adapted them to the discharge of peculiar lines of duty, reserving to himself, however, not only the general control of the discussion, but the execution of those portions of it which appear to have been attended with the greatest difficulties. The Secretary of the United States for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Jay), notwithstanding the lukewarmness of his sympathy, was induced to undertake those portions of the discussion which related to the importance of the Union in connection with the foreign relations of the States, and to the treaty-making authority of the Senate—both of them being subjects which his official position enabled him to discuss with unusual ability, without compromising in the least his general political sentiments, and without obliging him, necessarily, to assent, even by implication, to any portion of the proposed Constitution. Mr. Madison, a delegate in the Convention from the State of Virginia, and one of the most influential members of that body, was also enlisted in the work, and to him was entrusted the discussion of those branches of the subject which were particularly connected with the individual powers and interests of the states, and of the people, including popular tumults, the republican character of the proposed constitution, the authority which it proposed to delegate to the three departments of the federal government respectively, the relative influence of the proposed federal and the state authorities, and the organization and authority of the proposed Senate and House of Representatives. A third auxiliary pen, it is said, was originally proposed; but no person having been named in that connection, the individual referred to is not certainly known, although it is not improbable that James Duane’s profound legal abilities or Philip Schuyler’s practical business education was that which was particularly desired to make the Federalist more perfect in some of its parts.

It is fortunate for the student of American constitutional history, that the distinguished leader of the “Federalists” in New York left behind him the syllabus of the great work which is the subject of our examination, from which, and from other sources, not less authentic, a more complete analysis of the argument which was employed in behalf of the proposed Constitution has been prepared, and will be submitted at the close of this Introduction. It will not be necessary, therefore, in this place, to examine the details of the discussion by the three champions of “the new system,” or to inquire in what manner the powerful and well-directed opposition within the State of New York was met and overcome.

The three associates labored harmoniously, each within his designated field of inquiry, but all under a common signature. The joint production was styled The Federalist—to indicate its support of the federal union of the thirteen sovereign states; and the several numbers which the triad produced bore the common signature of “Publius.”

Of the manner in which the three authors discharged their self-imposed duty, the general approval of their countrymen and the encomiums of the learned throughout Europe have borne the most satisfactory evidence. The Federalist is surpassed by few, if any, writings of a similar character, of the period in which it was written; and if confusion sometimes prevails in its pages from the want of precision in their use of acknowledged technical terms; if their early training in British schools, under British masters, hampered them in their newly acquired position as lawgivers for commonwealths which had expressly rejected the fundamental principles of British governmental science; if the then imperfectly acquired knowledge of the ancient republics rendered their illustrations, to some extent, imperfect—the distinguished authors of the work shared these misfortunes with the best writers of the age in which they lived, and their work is not more disfigured from these causes than are those of the most approved authors of that period.

The Text of the Federalist

The essays of the Federalist were first printed in the newspapers, and were then republished without substantial textual change in the McLean edition of 1788. In 1802, the Hopkins edition, described above, appeared with many textual changes in the essays written by Hamilton, and in 1818 the Gideon edition, with further changes in the Madison essays. The new text of these two editions was adopted in all subsequent editions, until the appearance of the one published in 1863 by Mr. Dawson, who reverted to the original text. Mr. John C. Hamilton, in his edition a year later, adopted the Hopkins and Gideon text. Thus it happens that there are two texts of the Federalist which contend for the honor of being the best and most authentic version of these famous essays.

I have had no hesitation in deciding as to the text to be adopted in this edition. Mr. Dawson’s argument in favor of the original text is unanswerable, and can be readily summarized. The essays of the Federalist were written at a special time for a special purpose. They formed an elaborate argument, intended to convince the people of the country of the value and usefulness of the proposed Constitution, and it is, therefore, historically essential that we should have them in the precise form in which they did their work.

The Federalist furthermore was the first authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, and was mainly written by the two principal authors of that instrument. It was the first exposition of the Constitution and the first step in the long process of development which has given life, meaning, and importance to the clauses agreed upon at Philadelphia. It has acquired all the weight and sanction of a judicial decision, and has been constantly used as an authority in the settlement of constitutional questions. The essays of Publius are undoubtedly a great work upon the general subject of political federation, and if they were nothing else, textual changes and improvements would be at least defensible, if not wholly desirable. But changes cease to be permissible when the writings in question are not only essays on the general subject of political federation and government under a written constitution, but are also arguments intended to serve a specific purpose at a particular time, which have assumed the weight and sanctity of judicial interpretation.

The authority for the most extensive changes, moreover, is by no means clear. It is certain that Hamilton opposed any alterations, and indeed forbade them. It is conceded also that the changes in the edition of 1802 were not made by Hamilton, with the exception probably of the paragraph in No. 56, and the extent of his approval of them is a matter of conjecture. The further slight changes in the edition of 1818 have, it is true, the sanction of Madison, but what we desire now is not Madison’s arguments in the phrases which he preferred in 1818, but in the words which he actually used in 1787 and 1788.

Finally, the changes were, as a rule, unimportant, often trivial, with two or three exceptions, entirely verbal, and, in my opinion, made no improvement. The text of this edition, therefore, is the original text of the newspapers and the McLean edition of 1788 as adopted by Mr. Dawson. I have added a few notes giving the text of the subsequent changes in every case where they seemed of the slightest importance, or where, by any possible construction, they could be considered to affect the meaning of the passage.

In only one point is Mr. Dawson’s edition as it seems to me open to criticism, and in that point alone does this edition depart from his text. The McLean edition changed the original numbering of the essays as they appeared in the newspapers. No. 35 of the newspapers was put back in the series and numbered 29. This was a proper change, because it placed the original No. 35 where it belonged in the natural sequence of subjects and arguments. The original Nos. 29 and 30 thus became 30 and 31, respectively. Then the McLean edition divided the original No. 31 into two parts, and numbered them 32 and 33. This change has no apparent reason, but it is perfectly harmless and unimportant. The effect of these changes was to advance the McLean essays one number each over the newspaper originals up to 76, which became 77 in the book-form. The remaining essays, 78 to 85 inclusive, appeared first from the author’s manuscript in the McLean edition, and were reprinted in the newspapers from that edition probably with the newspaper numbering, so that no No. 85 ever appeared in the newspapers. It is obvious that the McLean edition must have had the approval of Hamilton, because the last eight numbers were printed from his manuscript; and if the edition had his sanction, of course the arrangement and numbering must have had it also, for these were the only points on which it differed from the newspapers. It is clear, therefore, that Hamilton thought the McLean numbering an improvement, and the changes then made in this direction have of course no effect whatever on the authority of the Federalist either as argument or interpretation.

Mr. Dawson shows by an ingenious bit of reasoning that there was no “original number 77,” and accordingly omits that number from his edition, and thus makes his last number 85. There is no ground, as I have pointed out, for thus adhering to an enumeration which omits one number because there was confusion in the differing forms of original publication, and which has no peculiar authority or sanction. There is, moreover, one fatal objection to Mr. Dawson’s system, in the fact that the numbering of the McLean edition has been universally adopted in all subsequent editions and has become the standard of reference. It is to be regretted that Mr., Dawson, in deference to rigid antiquarianism, should have marred his edition by a numbering which, for no substantial reason, differs from the accepted standard, and which, on this account and by omitting one number altogether, makes intelligent reference to it difficult, if not impossible.

The text of this edition, therefore, is, as I have said, the untouched original text, and the essays are numbered according to what, in my opinion, is the original arrangement, and which is certainly the best, as it is the standard numbering, that of the first edition of 1788.

In conclusion, I have only to express my thanks to the many kind correspondents who have given me information as to the Federalist and its editions, and to state my obligations to the work of Mr. Dawson, to whose masterly introduction and admirable analytical table of contents this and all the subsequent editions of the essays of Publius must be largely indebted.