Federalist No. 9
 Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 9 | |
| Author | Alexander Hamilton |
|---|---|
| Original title | The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Series | The Federalist |
| Publisher | The Independent Journal |
Publication date | November 21, 1787 |
| Media type | Newspaper |
| Preceded by | Federalist No. 8 |
| Followed by | Federalist No. 10 |
| Text | Federalist No. 9 at Wikisource |
Federalist No. 9 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The Independent Journal (New York) on November 21, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. Federalist No. 9 is titled "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection".[1]
Background and publication[edit]
Federalist No. 9 was written by Alexander Hamilton. Like all of the Federalist Papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius in New York newspapers to explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it.[2] It was first published in the Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787, and then in the New-York Packet on November 23, 1787.[3]
Analysis[edit]
Hamilton takes a strong position in the opening of Federalist No. 9, describing ancient Greece and Rome as mere "petty republics" compared to the proposed constitution. By contrasting it with the nations regarded as the founders of Western civilization, he implied that the United States was creating an entirely new type of civilization.[4]: 68 [5]: 81 Hamilton cited modern understanding of political science as an advantage the United States had over the ancient republics.[4]: 70 This was a rare instance in the Federalist Papers that did not look back at the ancient republics fondly.[6]: 43
Hamilton described good government as a balance between anarchy and tyranny, arguing that the new republicanism of the United States would be the first form of government to reliably maintain such a balance.[4]: 69 One of the foremost purposes of the proposed government cited by Hamilton was to prevent societal instability caused by a constant military threat between the states. In the philosophy of Adam Smith, the preservation of stability in this fashion directly benefits everyone in society by allowing a setting for the production of economic value.[7]
Hamilton is less adamant about a strong central government in Federalist No. 9 relative to his position in the previous Federalist Papers, making a distinction between a confederated union of states versus a strong unitary state.[4]: 70 Citing Montesquieu, he argued that a union of the states would protect itself from tyranny because any tyrant who gained influence in one state would be opposed by the other states.[5]: 115
Montesquieu and the anti-federalists[edit]
A popular argument among anti-federalists was that a single unified nation would be far too large to sustain a republic. This idea was pushed heavily in the Anti-Federalist Papers, where Agrippa, Brutus, Cato, and Centinel all argued this point.[6]: 86 The anti-federalists used Montesquieu to support their concerns about the size of the United States, presenting his arguments to say it was impossible for such a large group of people to share the same culture and values.[4]: 70 They believed that a unification of the states would create a nation too large to be a republic, citing the tyranny that developed as Greece and Rome expanded.[6]: 86 Brutus argued that it would be unwise to experiment with new forms of government.[4]: 69
Hamilton referenced Montesquieu by name in Federalist No. 9 and quoted him to refute the anti-federalist arguments.[4]: 70 Hamilton noted that the states were already larger than the ancient republics,[5]: 62 and argued that if Montesquieu's analysis was applicable to the United States, then anything other than splitting into countless small entities would cause the nation to fall into monarchy.[6]: 86 One Montesquieu quote cited by Hamilton described an "assemblage of societies" similar to the federalism Hamilton supported. Another further supported this when Hamilton agreed with Montesquieu that Lycia was an ideal of confederation with its cities of varying size and strength.[6]: 119
Other federalists participated in the debate separately from the Federalist Papers: Americanus disagreed that European philosophies applied to the circumstances of the United States, and A Citizen of America wrote that the ancient republics lacked the core values of republicanism held by Americans.[6]: 86–88
Aftermath[edit]
Federalist No. 9 served as a lead-in to Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison and the most influential of the Federalist Papers.[4]: 68 Hamilton's concept of "enlarging the orbit" in No. 9 was reintroduced in No. 10 as "extending the sphere".[4]: 70 John Quincy Adams later described Nos. 9 and 10 as "rival dissertations on Faction and its remedy", though No. 10 addresses the issue more directly.[8]: 157 After Madison's writings in No. 10, Hamilton revisited the government's ability to suppress dangerous factions several more times throughout the Federalist Papers.[8]: 156
Madison revisited the ideal size of a republic in Federalist No. 14, when he said that a democracy must be small while a republic can be small or large, challenging anti-federalists who would invoke Montesquieu.[8]: 139 Hamilton repeated his belief that Lycia was the ideal confederation in Federalist No. 16, adding the Achaeans as another example.[6]: 119 Another attempt was made to define the federalist government in Federalist No. 39, but it is not consistent with the one laid out in Federalist No. 9.[5]: 225
Federalist No. 9 was cited by Sandra Day O'Connor in Heath v. Alabama (1985) to demonstrate that there are specific aspects of sovereignty that states are expected to have, though it was not a significant influence in her overall argument.[9]
Modern political terminology has affected the meanings of union and confederacy. While Hamilton described his desired federalist government as a confederacy, the term is now more commonly associated with a looser collection of states, which Hamilton opposed.[4]: 71
References[edit]
- ^ The U.S Constitution and Other Writings, Canterbury Classics, page 96
- ^ "Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on July 17, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
- ^ "Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on January 21, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Scott, Kyle (2013). The Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. A&C Black. pp. 68–71. ISBN 978-1-4411-0814-2.
- ^ a b c d Millican, Edward (2014). One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-6137-2.
- ^ a b c d e f g Bederman, David J. (2008). The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution: Prevailing Wisdom. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-46914-2.
- ^ Hardin, Russell (1989). "Why a Constitution?". In Grofman, Bernard; Wittman, Donald A. (eds.). The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism. Algora Publishing. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-87586-085-5.
- ^ a b c White, Morton (1989). Philosophy, The Federalist, and the Constitution. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536307-4.
- ^ Durchslag, Melvyn R. (2005). "The Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers: Is There Less Here Than Meets the Eye?". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 14 (1): 292.