Federalist No. 1 vs. Anti-Federalist No. 1: The Debate Over Ratifying the Constitution
- The American View
- Dec 2, 2024
- 14 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
TL;DR
Federalist No. 1 and an early Anti-Federalist essay reveal the competing arguments surrounding ratification of the proposed U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argued that a stronger national government could preserve the Union and protect liberty, while John DeWitt emphasized careful public examination and warned that concentrated governmental power could threaten individual liberty.
Key Takeaways
Federalist No. 1 was written by Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius to introduce the case for ratifying the proposed Constitution.
Hamilton argued that the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation demonstrated the need to consider a stronger federal system.
John DeWitt, writing as "A Federalist," argued that the proposed Constitution should be subjected to careful public scrutiny before ratification.
DeWitt's position was not simply opposition to the Constitution; he supported adoption if it could preserve liberty and called for amendments if it could not.
The two essays demonstrate that the ratification debate involved competing concerns about effective government, individual liberty, political power, and the preservation of the Union.
Updated 8/11/26
The Constitution was not produced through unanimous agreement among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. From May through September 1787, the delegates debated under rules of secrecy to protect their deliberations. They worked through fundamental questions concerning representation, federal power, taxation, the relationship between the states and the national government, and the structure of the proposed government.
Not long after beginning deliberations, the convention agreed to move beyond the original objective of revising the Articles of Confederation and instead began work on an entirely new constitutional framework.
Ratification: What does ratification mean?
Once the draft of the U.S. Constitution was completed, the convention then sent the Constitution to each state to determine whether they would agree to ratify the document.
Ratification is the formal process by which an authorized body gives its approval to a proposed agreement, law, or constitutional document. In 1787–1788, ratification meant the formal approval of the proposed Constitution by state conventions.
Each state established their ratification procedures and the methods of selecting the convention delegates differed between the states.
Article VII of the proposed Constitution required ratification of nine States to pass ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Article VII states, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
The Ratification Debates
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, among others, published essays defending the proposed Constitution and urging its ratification in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius.
These essays are collectively known as the Federalist Papers.
Meanwhile, opponents and critics of the proposed Constitution also published essays and pamphlets expressing a range of objections and concerns about the proposed Constitution.
Using pseudonyms such as Brutus, Cato, Federal Farmer, and Centinel, the authors cautioned against rushing to ratify the Constitution, covering concerns that included the scope of federal power, representation, the size of the proposed republic, and the absence of a bill of rights.
Later on, historians gathered many of such writings under a collective designation Anti-Federalist Papers, though they were not originally published a single series.
This article examines Federalist No. 1 and an early Anti-Federalist essay commonly identified as Anti-Federalist No. 1, while focusing on the arguments of the authors regarding the proposed Constitution and its ratification.
For a broader examination of the constitutional debate between these two camps, see our guide to Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism and the Founding Debate over the American Constitution.
What Was Federalist No. 1 About?
In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton introduced the central question facing Americans: whether the proposed Constitution should be adopted through the deliberate judgment of the people or rejected because of political divisions, personal interests, and fear of change.
Hamilton argued that the Constitution deserved careful consideration on its merits. He acknowledged that the debate would involve strong passions and competing interests, but maintained that Americans had an opportunity to determine whether a new system of government could preserve the Union while protecting republican government.
Rather than attempting to explain the Constitution's individual provisions, Federalist No. 1 established the purpose of the essays that followed. Hamilton intended The Federalist to examine the proposed Constitution and make the case for its ratification.
To understand Hamilton's argument, it is useful to begin with the concerns he identified in Federalist No. 1 itself.
Federalist No. 1
Federalist No. 1, written by Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius, was published in the Independent Journal on October 27, 1787.
The Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation
“AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton opened by pointing to what he regarded as the demonstrated weaknesses of the government established under the Articles of Confederation. The Confederation Congress depended heavily upon the states to provide the resources necessary to carry out national responsibilities.
The government created by the Articles of Confederation had several significant weaknesses. One central problem was that the government had responsibilities without sufficient power to fulfill them.
Specifically, there was no mechanism to compel the states to provide those funds. Article
VIII of the Articles states:
“All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all land within each state” -Articles of Confederation
Government by “Reflection and Choice”
Hamilton continues, “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.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton presented the American experiment as a test of whether a people could deliberately establish a durable system of government through "reflection and choice" rather than through accident or force.
He then states, “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.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton therefore portrayed ratification as a decision with consequences extending beyond the immediate political dispute.
“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.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
In modern terms, Hamilton was arguing that Americans should make their decision based on what would best serve the public good, rather than allowing political interests or personal biases to influence their judgment.
Government, Liberty, and Political Ambition
“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.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton identified two potential sources of opposition: officials who might resist changes that threatened their positions and individuals who might see political advantage to weakening the union.
“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.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton cautioned his readers that political motivations could influence both supporters and opponents of a proposal, making it difficult to judge arguments solely by the stated motives of those presenting them.
“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 parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton predicted that the ratification debate would produce intense political disagreement and that both sides might attempt to persuade the public through emotionally charged rhetoric.
“An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton argued that supporters of an energetic government would be accused of favoring despotism, while those who expressed concern about governmental power might be accused of using concern for liberty as a political strategy. His point was that the rhetoric surrounding the debate could obscure the substantive constitutional questions.
“On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton's argument was that an effective government was most likely necessary to preserve liberty, and that concentrated political ambition could threaten liberty even when presented as concern for the people.
The Case for Union
“In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton concluded this portion of the essay by explicitly acknowledging that he favored adoption of the proposed Constitution while urging readers to judge the question according to evidence rather than political passion.
“Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton's declaration makes clear that Federalist No. 1 was not presented as a neutral analysis. He openly advocated ratification and intended the subsequent essays to make the case for the proposed Constitution.
“But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
Hamilton points out a contemplation of the opposition: Would dividing the states into separate confederacies, rather than maintaining a single union, be necessary?
“For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.” -Alexander Hamilton – Federalist No. 1
He concluded Federalist No. 1 by announcing the subject of his next essay: the advantages of maintaining the Union and the dangers he believed would follow from its dissolution. That argument became the focus of Federalist No. 2.
Hamilton's Federalist No. 1 therefore established several themes that would shape the essays that followed: the weaknesses of the Confederation government, the dangers of faction and political passion, the relationship between governmental energy and liberty, and the importance of preserving the Union. The Anti-Federalist writings provide a different perspective on these same constitutional questions.
Anti-Federalist No. 1
An early Anti-Federalist essay was published on November 26, 1787, in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal. The author, John DeWitt, wrote under the pseudonym "A Federalist"—an intentionally ironic choice given the essay's criticism of the proposed Constitution.
The Right of the People to Examine the Constitution
“I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
Mr. DeWitt argued that if the proposed Constitution was worthy of support, it should withstand careful public examination.
“The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
Both Hamilton and DeWitt emphasized the importance of public judgment in deciding the fate of the proposed Constitution, although they ultimately reached different conclusions about the document.
Fears of Aristocracy and Consolidated Power
“The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
DeWitt connected aristocracy with the suppression of public inquiry, arguing that political power could prevent citizens from adequately examining the proposed Constitution.
“Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH [of Massachusetts]. Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its adoption. They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
DeWitt argued that some supporters of the Constitution were attempting to accelerate ratification before the public had sufficient time to examine the proposal. He associated this pressure with his broader concern that the proposed government would establish a "RIGID" and potentially overcentralized system.
“They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
DeWitt accused supporters of attempting to restrict public debate and portrayed such efforts as evidence that the Constitution should be examined with particular care.
Liberty and the Question of Ratification
“I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
DeWitt's position was not an outright rejection of the possibility of ratification. He stated that a constitutional union was desirable if it could preserve the liberties of the people.
“If we can confederate upon terms that wilt secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole. If the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be amended; in order to which it must and ought to be open to inspection and free inquiry.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
Would the proposed Constitution secure the people’s liberties or endanger them?
DeWitt's central concern was therefore conditional: the Constitution should be adopted if it secured liberty, but amended if its provisions threatened it. He also emphasized the importance of allowing the public to examine and debate the proposed system before ratification.
“It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation.” -A Federalist – Anti-federalist No. 1
DeWitt distinguished between citizens who supported the Constitution in good faith and those whom he believed were attempting to suppress further investigation.
Political Interests and Ratification
“These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever. These consist generally, of the NOBLE order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination. The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger.” -A Federalist – Anti-Federalist No. 1
DeWitt attributed support for the proposed Constitution to several groups he believed stood to benefit from the new government. His argument illustrates the extent to which questions of economic interest and political power had become part of the ratification debate.
“The time draws near for the choice of Delegates. I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.” -A Federalist – Anti-Federalist No. 1
As Massachusetts was preparing to choose delegates for their ratification convention, Mr. DeWitt urged his fellow citizens to seriously consider the character of those whom they would choose.
Conclusion
Federalist No. 1 and the Anti-Federalist essay examined here reveal a ratification debate more complicated than a simple division between supporters and opponents of the Constitution. Both Hamilton and DeWitt appealed to the judgment of the American people and argued that the proposed system deserved careful examination.
Their disagreement centered largely on the relationship between effective government and individual liberty. Hamilton believed a stronger national government was necessary to preserve the Union and secure liberty, while DeWitt feared that a more powerful national government could threaten the liberties it was intended to protect.
Neither essay provides the whole story of the ratification debate. Together, however, they illustrate the competing constitutional concerns that shaped the debate over the proposed Constitution: the need for an effective Union, the dangers of concentrated power, and the responsibility of the people to examine the proposed system before accepting it.
Federalist No. 1 and Antifederalist No. 1 provide an early glimpse into the larger debate over the proposed Constitution. The disagreements between Federalists and Anti-Federalists extended far beyond these opening essays, touching questions of federal power, individual liberty, representation, taxation, and the proper structure of the new government.
To explore the broader debate, read our guide to Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism: The Founding Debate over the American Constitution
This article has been modified and updated by The American View, with original material produced by Paul Engel.
Paul Engel is an Affiliate of Institute on the Constitution. He founded The Constitution Study in 2014 to help everyday Americans read and study the Constitution. Author and speaker, Paul has spent more than 20 years studying and teaching about both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. Freely admitting that he “learned more about our Constitution from School House Rock than in 12 years of public school” he proves that anyone can be a constitutional scholar. You can find his books on the Institute on the Constitution Store (theamericanview.com), Amazon, and Apple Books. You can also listen to his weekday radio show on America Out Loud (https://americaoutloud.com/the-constitution-study). You can reach him at paul@constitutionstudy.com
Comments