What the Federalists Were For

What the Federalists Were For 

Jonathan Den Hartog, Samford University 

With the draft Constitution approved by the Philadelphia Convention and sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the country launched into what Alexander Hamilton called in Federalist #1 a “great national discussion.” Citizens in all the states entered a deliberative process to consider what would best serve the public good. In the debates that followed, strong arguments arose from the Federalists (supporting ratification) and the Anti-Federalists (opposing it). The critical reason that the Federalist cause succeeded was that, in fact, they had the better arguments about the nation.

First, the Federalists better diagnosed their contemporary moment and the steps needed to address its challenges. As astute observers of the nation’s condition in the decade after independence, they realized the multiple problems facing the republic. This started with the failure to enforce the peace treaty with Great Britain. Next, Congress found itself increasingly unable to repay the debts it had contracted during the American Revolution. These dual failures of national integrity were due to structural problems rooted in the Articles of Confederation. As a result, Federalists were not surprised that the country experienced increasing examples of disorder, most dramatically in Shays’s Rebellion in western Massachusetts, in which disaffected farmers shut down their local courts. Federalist Henry Knox was not only personally horrified at this anarchy—he made sure his nationalist friends throughout the country knew about it, too. Finally, the weakness of the Articles threatened the persistence of the union of the states. They truly feared a national collapse into competing confederacies. These concerns accurately depicted the critical state of the union.

Second, the Federalists better described the human condition and its implication for government. Incisively, James Madison asked in Federalist #51, “But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” If so, what was this human nature? The Federalists were realists. In the same Federalist essay, Madison acknowledged that neither the governed nor the governing were angels. On the other hand, they asserted the human capacity for self-government. The entire point of ratification, Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist #1, was to demonstrate that “societies of men are really capable. . .of establishing good government from reflection and choice.” Where the Anti-Federalists were suspicious of human government to a fault, the Federalists cautiously empowered Americans to act under a constitutional government.

The Federalists further recognized that humans created diverse societies. With different talents and abilities, people developed varied opinions and interests. The political realm established by the Constitution became the arena in which those differences could be worked out. The goal could not be uniform agreement but a process of accommodating competing interests. Put another way, Madison emphasized that self-interested factions could never be eliminated, but they could be controlled. This process would work best through a representative system, rather than a pure democracy. Representation would allow multiple channels by which the popular will could be ascertained. Even better, representative government could “refine and enlarge the public views,” allowing a deeper, fuller understanding to dominate in the national councils, as Madison wrote in Federalist #10. Given these accounts of humans and society, the Federalists proposed an effective, realistic framework for government.

The structure they proposed allowed for—indeed encouraged—an extended, large republic. The success the country had experienced in the American Revolution demonstrated that their national union already stretched wider than had previously been thought possible—a point John Jay emphasized in Federalist #2. Further, there were real benefits to a larger national union. For Madison, that benefit lay in allowing more interests and perspectives into politics. “Extend the sphere,” he wrote in Federalist #10, “and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.” Small republics might be more homogenous, but that could be a weakness as majorities could oppress minorities without hindrance. Finally, the Federalists recognized that the United States would be operating in a hostile world. To survive and compete with the European powers would require greater resources in a large, powerful nation than other theorists of republics had reckoned. In pursuing this extended republic, however, the Federalists advocated for a mixed sovereignty of a federal republic in which citizens could still operate effectively in their states while simultaneously benefiting from a large nation. In Federalist #39, Madison observed that the government operated in ways that were both national and federal, i.e., involving the states.

Third, the Federalists understood the need for appropriate energy in government. They criticized the Articles of Confederation for doing too little. They rightly argued that the constituted government needed to be strong enough to do the tasks assigned to it. As Hamilton put it in Federalist #1, “the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty.” Contrary to the Constitution’s critics, undue fear could undermine the effective administration necessary to secure liberty. Hamilton later asserted in Federalist #68, “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.” In practice, this led to the Constitution being construed as empowering the government to act broadly in the spheres where it was empowered to act. Both Hamilton as Treasury Secretary and Chief Justice John Marshall advanced this consistent interpretation to entrust the national government with the energy requisite for its appointed tasks.

Put together, the Federalist arguments—about the problems confronting the United States, the nature of humans and of human society, the value of an extensive nation, and the necessity of effectiveness in government—convinced delegates in ratifying conventions throughout the states. The long-term success of the Constitution should push us to acknowledge that they more accurately answered the pressing political questions than did their Anti-Federalist opponents. They should also inspire us, as citizens, to dig deeper into the issues to build upon their successes.