The Federalist

THE FEDERALIST
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS
WRITTEN IN FAVOUR OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION
AS AGREED UPON BY THE FEDERAL CONVETION,
SEPTEMBER 17, 1787.

FEDERALIST. No. 1
General Introduction
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting
federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on 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 in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems
to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct
and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of
men are really capable or not of establishing good government from
reflection 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 era in which 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 add the inducements of philanthropy to those of
patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good
men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be
directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and
unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But
this is a thing more ardently to be wished 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 foreign to its merits, and of views,
passions and prejudices little favorable 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 aggrandize 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 well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve
indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their
situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious
views. Candor 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, 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, would furnish a lesson of moderation
to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in
any controversy. 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 influenced 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 those who oppose the right side of a
question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation,
nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at
all times, characterized 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, 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