Describing ratification Federalist No. 1 served as an introduction to the
Federalist Papers in its entirety, describing the arguments that would be made. Through the essay, Hamilton appealed to the magnitude of the ratification decision. He presented it as a decision that would define the nature of government, not just for the American people of the time but for future societies more broadly. In his view, it would decide whether humanity was ready for government by the people. Hamilton proposed in
Federalist No. 1 that ratification of the constitution would allow for a closer bond between the American people and allow the creation of a stronger national identity. He considered the creation of a union to be a means to an end, to bring prosperity. He did not indicate whether the benefits he touted were for the specific reader in an
individualist sense or the entire nation in a
collectivist sense. The constitution required ratification by popular conventions in each state.
Federalist No. 1 presented it as an issue for the people to decide. Hamilton believed that even if the constitution was ratified, it would not be possible to maintain a stable government unless a majority of the population supported it. He invoked ideas of
American exceptionalism, suggesting that the United States was developing unprecedented government that would be replicated throughout the world. Hamilton believed that the capacity for reason to guide the American government set it apart from other nations. Alternatively, he argued that failure to ratify the constitution would end with a "dismemberment of the Union".
Describing opponents of ratification Hamilton's chief ideological opponents were
Thomas Jefferson and the
Anti-Federalists: though Hamilton and Jefferson both believed in a sharing of power between government and the people, and both believed in the government's role in shaping the nation, Jefferson favored a smaller government overall. Hamilton linked the decision to ratify with morality and intellectual honesty, describing it as a consideration for the public good. He argued that opposition to the constitution primarily existed out of personal interest. He described two types of people that opposed ratification. First, he said that some politicians may oppose it because they wish to avoid losing power to the national government. Second, he said that profiteers may oppose it because they could take advantage of an unstable political environment. Hamilton suggested that he was above ideas, advocating objectivity that he believed would logically conclude in support for ratification. Hamilton dispelled any idea that emotion or personal interest, as opposed to reason, should influence the decision to ratify, declaring his own personal motivations to be irrelevant as well. He believed that objective truth could be found even among controversial matters, but that agreement on this truth is not to be expected. Hamilton feared that supporters of the constitution may behave in an unbecoming manner toward opponents, attributing negative intentions to them all. Despite his derision of the constitution's opponents, Hamilton conceded that some opponents may have honest motivations and some proponents may have selfish motivations. In particular, he described those who feared restrictions on liberty as an honest but misguided group. It was this group of honest opponents that Hamilton sought to persuade. Hamilton believed an overemphasis on liberty at the expense of good government created a "spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust" and that it was necessary to create such a passion in favor of government rather than against it. Hamilton's urging of reason over emotion more broadly addressed the concept of
political polarization and the breakdown of
civil discourse. While he criticized his opponents, he also addressed the need to make an assumption of
good faith in political discourse and to avoid
demonization of political opponents. He expressed a dim view of those who speak in absolutes, who attribute malicious motives to political opponents, who attack opposing arguments before considering them, and who use "the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives" to strengthen their position in political discourse. He instead argued that different people can come to different conclusions about an idea and that bad ideas do not necessarily reflect on one's character.
Political philosophy and forms of government Federalist No. 1 established a style of argument based in
Enlightenment philosophy. The main points set out by
Federalist No. 1 followed the structure of philosophers
Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke, presenting first the needs of the people and then developing the idea of government as a solution to those needs. Hamilton disagreed with their solution, however, as Hobbes and Locke both proposed
absolute government while Hamilton proposed
limited government. He also deviated from Hobbes's view of humanity, arguing that many people are willing to give up personal interest for the greater good. More broadly,
Federalist No. 1 raises existential questions of political philosophy, as it makes a distinction between
political autonomy and
path dependence. Hamilton suggested that path dependence can be overcome not just through sheer will, but by rejecting passions and making decisions through reason. Hamilton presented a general concept of
good government in
Federalist No. 1. In public life, Hamilton was an advocate of strong government that he described as the "energetic executive", and he believed that fears of despotism were disproportionate to the risk. Hamilton feared a
democracy in which the people had too much power relative to the government, expressing the common belief at the time that democracy was undesirable as it created
demagogues and
tyrants. He considered the alternative to strong central government to be a people whose fate is determined by "accident and force" rather than their own will, ruled arbitrarily by aristocracy, monarchy, or anarchism rather than a republic governed by reason, which he considered to be the best form of government. == Aftermath ==