Federalist 1 Explained | Alexander Hamilton’s Call for a Stronger U.S. Government

0:00 My name is Kirk Higgins. I’m the Director of Content at the Bill of Rights Institute. And today I’m going to be explaining Federalist Number 1. Let’s check it out. So this is your first time at one of these explain videos. Welcome. If it’s not, you’ll know the drill. We’re going to go through a little bit of the historical context before we actually get to the document. So for this, I want to start by talking about the Articles of Confederation.

0:23 Now, I have a whole video on the Articles of Confederation, so if you want to check that out and learn more about the document, take a look at it. I stepped through the whole thing, and hopefully you’ll find it interesting. But suffice to say, the Articles of Confederation were the charter that was governed in the United States from 1781 until when the Federalist papers were written in 1787.

0:43 So the Articles of Federation were a loose governing confederation, and it had become clear to the states that they weren’t functioning as best as they could. So a group of delegates met in Philadelphia in 1787 with the intent of revising those Articles. And what came out of that convention was actually an entire new Constitution. So in order to get that Constitution passed, though, they needed to send it up

1:07 to the states to get it ratified or legally approved. And that happened on September 17, 1787. They had finished the document. Everybody signed it and was going to sign it, although some didn’t. I also have another video explaining the Constitution, which you can check out. But suffice to say that for this conversation, it was down to the stage for ratification on September 17, which is now known as Constitution Day.

1:29 But what this meant was that there was going to be a series of debates called ratification debates, again looking for that legal approval that each state was going to have to go through. So the Constitution called for each state to call together a convention of the people. So delegates elected specifically for the purpose of voting on whether or not to adopt a new Constitution. This would take place in all 13 of the states.

1:49 And when nine of those 13 had been approved, the Constitution itself would become a legal document. But those debates weren’t going to be the same in every state. Some states were very eager to approve it. Others were not. So one of the states that was going to be a challenge with those who were in favor of the Constitution, known as The Federalists, was going to be a challenge was New York.

2:10 So in New York, a group of three men got together and decided to write a series of essays that are now called The Federal Papers. Those men were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Together, they were collectively known as Publius. So Publius was their pen name, and the intention was that they would all write under the same name,

2:31 advocating on behalf of the constitution, but not wanting to cloud anyone’s judgment by them putting forward their own identities. But also during this time, it was very traditional for them to appeal to some kind of ancient authority that was somehow representing their views. So this publius, there’s a couple of different versions

2:51 of who it may be, but I tend to think it was Publius from the Roman era who was a patriot and a general and statesman who came in and saved the republics all the time. So as these three men are writing these essays, they’re wanting to evoke that idea within the population. So they wrote under the name Publius. Now, the first essay that they were going

3:13 to write in this collection was now Federalist 1. So that’s what we’re going to look at today. So the questions here are sort of we always try to take a big look at these big questions. Questions I’m going to focus on today are what choice is published putting before the people of the United States? And what challenges does debating of this choice present? I think we’ll find it’s really interesting so publicly opens with this great opening paragraph.

3:35 He says, after the full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new constitution of the United States of America. The subject speaks of its own importance. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide by their conduct and example the important questions whether societies of men are really capable of not or not of establishing good

4:00 government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. So this, I think, is the most famous line of this paper, but I want to draw your attention to a couple of different things. One, it’s interesting that he’s saying, you are invited, you are invited to deliberate upon the new constitution here.

4:22 He’s really invoking this idea of that this is a democratic process, that even though it’s the state delegations are voting on it, it’s you. The people who have to think about this, then goes on to say that there’s this important question of whether societies have been a really capable or not of establishing good government. So important good government, not just government, but good government

4:42 on reflection and choice, or whether or not they are forever destined on their political constitutions on accident enforce. So what he’s essentially saying here is self government possible? Can we govern ourselves? Can we choose a government that is going to operate on our behalf? Or are we forever destined?

5:02 That accident and force, meaning things that happen out of our control. The most powerful king, the most powerful monarch, the most powerful dictator is always going to be the one that takes charge. And there is no opportunity for us to do this and he’s saying that this choice specifically is a part of that conversation. But I’m not sure. He’s saying that this is the only way that the United States is doing this.

5:25 And in many ways I think we continue to think about this and continue to do this. We have to continually choose that self government is the way because it’s a challenge, it’s hard. So Publius goes on to talk about that a little bit more. She says this if there’d be any truth in the remark that the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the period when that decision, again,

5:46 whether or not accident enforce or choice is the way that we can choose governments, whether or not individuals can self govern at all, is the choice he’s talking about. So whether it can be regarded as the period when the decision is to be made in wrong election of the part, we shall act in this view, deserve to be considered as general misfortune of mankind.

6:07 So in other words, if we don’t get this decision right, then mankind is forever doomed to accident enforce. But if we can get it right and we can prove that self government is possible, that we can choose a government in which we can operate and live and don’t succumb to the problems that other democratic nations had come to up to that point, then he’s saying we can really do something truly great for mankind.

6:28 So in other words, he’s setting the stakes really high for this decision. And he’s saying, look, this is a big thing we’re undertaking here. This is a big opportunity. Let’s not mess it up. Instead, let’s really think about this and deliberate it. So he’s sort of doing something rhetorically that’s interesting. He’s inviting all of us into this conversation and saying that this is the most important conversation that you’ve ever been a part of in your

6:50 life and that basically the fate of the world is in your hands, so to speak, which is interesting from a rhetorical point of view. And also if you want to think about it from just whether or not he’s right, I mean, you can debate about that. But it’s interesting that’s the way here Publius is is setting this up. He’s putting his highest stakes as possible on this conversation. So Publius has set the huge stakes in what it

7:11 is that we’re going to be debating and talking about. So now we’re going to outline those challenges. So again, looking at our question, what is it that previous is asking us to choose? Well, essentially he’s putting the Constitution in the context of whether or not self-government is possible. Choosing to follow and ratify the Constitution means that it possibly is. Choosing not to may mean that it’s not.

7:32 But I think ultimately what he’s also saying is our ability to even deliberate and have this conversation is a part of what this means to be self governance, right? Being able to be in dialogue and have fundamental disagreements about what this constitution is going to look like is an important part of self governance generally. So he goes on to say this here among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new constitution will have

7:54 to encounter may readily be distinguishing the obvious interests of certain classes of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power monument and consequence of the offices they hold under state establishments, and the perverted ambition of another

8:14 class of men who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country or will flatter themselves with fair prospects of elevation from a subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies from its union under one government. So what’s he saying essentially, he’s saying here that there’s going to be a bunch of people who have a lot of interest in things staying the way that they are.

8:35 And those people are going to come out and say, hey, this isn’t a good idea, but their motivations may not be pure. Their motivations may be to retain the power that they currently have. Or he’s saying their motivations may be to what he says subdivide the empire. What he’s saying is there’s benefit to some people in fragmenting the nation into bickering and partisanship and not being able to come together and agree upon these things.

8:57 And those are things to watch out for. Now, what he’s doing again rhetorically, is he saying, look, don’t listen to the opposition. There’s going to be people that come out and say that this constitution is not a great idea, but don’t listen to them because they may be motivated by things that aren’t purely about the common interest, implying that he is working towards the common interest. There is a benefit here, again, not to say that he’s wrong in using that rhetoric or that he’s

9:20 laying out something that is true, but it’s interesting to look at it from two perspectives, both from the perspective of what is he trying to argue and also what is he actually saying. So we’re looking at both of those things as we go through here. And again, this is getting at that idea. What are the challenges that are going to be faced as we go through this ratification process?

9:40 So, moving on, Publius says it is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. So I don’t want to dwell on why it is that people may or may not support the constitution. And this is really interesting because here he’s going back and he’s going to talk again about this idea of self governance. I am aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately

10:00 the opposition of any set of men into interested or ambitious views merely because their situations might be subject to subject them to suspicion. In other words, I can’t just dismiss their negative views or their opposition to the constitution simply because they may stand to lose in the changing of these governing structures. There has to be more to it than that.

10:21 Candor will oblige us, he says, to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions. And it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition will spring from sources blameless, at least if not respectable to the honest errors of the minds that, led astray by perceived jealousy, appears so numerous indeed and so powerful causes which serve to give a false bias to judgment than we may upon many

10:46 occasions see wise and good men on the wrong as well as the right side of questions of the first magnitude of the first magnitude society. This circumstance, if do we engage in any controversy, would always furnish a lesson of moderation. In other words, let’s be moderate, let’s be prudential is another way of thinking about this. Let’s be cautious when looking at these things.

11:06 Let’s listen, let us think through what it is that the opposition is saying and ensure that what we’re debating and what we’re arguing is really oriented towards the common good or bettering everyone’s position within the country under this new governing document. And that lesson in moderation, I think, is an important one. Again, thinking about what’s the overall

11:26 stakes this is about self government, whether or not we can have self government and whether or not we can have government by choice. In order to do that, it’s important to listen to your fellow citizens, to have this debate and to work together to come to some kind of an agreement and not just simply dismissing each other outright because of second guessing motivations.

11:47 So we need to move forward with this idea of moderation. Then goes on to say, a torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. So during this process, a lot of people are going to be angry and upset. There’s going to be all kinds of things coming from all over the place. We’re going to move really quick here. He says if enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of power and hostile the principles of liberty, an overscrupulous jealousy

12:10 of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly defaulted, the heads and the heart will be represented as mere pretense and artifice to stay on the toe for popularity at the expense of public good. So what he’s saying, this new constitution, he’s sort of tipping his hand here is going to be more powerful, there’s going to be more power than the central government. People are going to claim that that’s a bad thing. But what I’m actually going to argue Publius is saying what I’m actually going to argue is that it’s a good thing.

12:32 And not only is it a good thing, it’s the best thing possibly for protecting the public good and these people are going to try to argue that we’re actually endangering public liberty but in fact we’re not. We’re the ones that are securing it. We shouldn’t be afraid of slightly stronger government. What we should be afraid of our people who are trying to manipulate views based off a jealous guarding of these principles. So we shouldn’t be overly jealous of guarding these principles.

12:55 There are important things that work here. What we need to do is have a good deliberation about them, be open to the idea that more energetic government, or by energetic I mean more efficient, more effective, stronger government sometimes is what is necessary in order to protect liberty and we shouldn’t be afraid of that is what Pulse is arguing here. So he goes on to say to build on that a little bit and he says that

13:19 the vigor of the government is essential to the security of liberty. That in contemplation of a sound and well formed judgment their interest can never be separated. He says a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the suspicious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.

13:39 So it’s interesting he’s making a claim here. He’s saying that more often people who are saying they’re speaking on behalf of the people are more dangerous to liberty than people who are saying that no, the government needs to intervene here. It’s an interesting point that he’s making but again he’s saying this in the context of trying to get people to ratify and agree on the Constitution and he’s setting up here arguments he’s going to return to throughout the Federalist Papers.

14:01 So he’s laying down sort of that gauntlet now for people to begin to see the direction he’s going to go. So then Provost concludes with outlining exactly what he’s going to do, says I’m going to look at the particulars of this constitution, the utility of the union to your political prosperity, the insufficiency of the President confederation. So again that’s the Articles of Confederation, the necessity of government at least as

14:23 equally energetic with the one proposed the conformity of the prose constitution of the two principles of republican government and that’s going to be it. That’s the Federalist Papers, this is the project. He says it’s an analogy to your own state constitution and lastly the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of their species of government, to liberty and to property.

14:44 So he’s saying this new constitution, I’m going to walk through all of it, I’m going to tell you why it’s going to work well and together you’re going to come to understand better why that is. So looking back at our two questions, what choice is Publius is putting before the country? Well, just the simple choice of whether or not self government is going to work. What he’s actually doing is setting up a conversation about the Constitution. He’s doing it rhetorically in a way that puts him as the defender of liberty

15:08 and working on behalf of preserving the people. But really, he’s arguing that this new constitution is going to do that, and it’s better for the nation, and he’s saying that everyone has a stake in that. So he’s including them in this huge debate and this huge conversation about whether or not self governance is possible. That’s pretty powerful. It’s pretty awesome. And then what challenges are going to be presented? Well, there’s going to be opposition,

15:29 and he knows there’s going to be opposition, and he doesn’t want to take time in saying that all of the opposition is bad. But what he’s trying to do is paint the opposition into a corner where they’re going to have to overcome the things that he’s already saying about them. They have to dismiss now the position they’re in. They have to say, no, this isn’t because I’m losing power that I had under the other confederation, but it’s instead because of whatever arguments are going to lay out.

15:52 Okay, that’s the anti Federalist, and they wrote a lot of different essays. A lot of them have a lot of issues with what Hamilton is laying out here. So I encourage you to take a look at those. And in fact, in future videos, we’re going to take a look at them. But for today, just know that’s what’s happening in Federalist. One, it’s Alexander Hamilton making his case for what he’s going to do in the Federalist Papers, why it’s important that we pay attention to those debates and what benefits are

16:15 going to come overall from ratifying this new Constitution. So I hope that you’ve enjoyed it. I hope you’ve learned a little bit about the first Federalist Paper. We’re releasing all kinds of different videos on the Bill of Rights Institute channel all the time, so I hope you’ll check it out. We have different conversations with scholars. We have investigations of different images, artifacts from throughout American history, all kinds of different stuff.

16:36 So if you’re interested in history or looking to brush up for an exam, take a look. It’s also got homework help videos and all kinds of stuff. So I appreciate you joining us, and I hope we’ll see you again.