Federalist 1: By Reason and Choice
Week two: Group reading of the US Constitution
We've Been Here Before
The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 essays written between October 1787 and August 1788. The first essay, Federalist 1, was published in The Independent Journal on October 27, 1787. We’ll be talking about that one today. Pretty cool to step into the history of our republic, some 238 years ago. The remaining essays were published mostly in New York newspapers and enjoyed syndication in papers across the Confederation.
While I’ve taken pains to frame our country’s founders in light of their wealth, power, privilege, and roles as enslavers, I suggest that by seeking to understand their aims, however inconsistent their aspirations may have been from their own daily lives, we may better understand our present political moment, in light of them. More, I submit that wrestling alongside the Federalist Papers that were authored under some risk, we may find our courage, passion, and motivation to pick up the Federalist’s pen and continue striving toward a republic that protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The founders are not deities, our republic is no religion, and the Constitution is not a sacred text. And yet, however flawed, I am proudly an American, and it’s paradoxically (or maybe it’s common sense) that my patriotism has only increased the more vocal I’ve become with my criticism of an administration that would seem untethered from Constitutional authority and disdainful of the rule of law.
Whatever hypocrisy we may find in the assurance of rights when people were owned as property and women were unable to vote, this group reading is a privilege—and I mean that—to read their words now, in 2025, that James Madison, Alexandar Hamilton, and John Jay wrote to convince their fellow citizens that a (small “r”) republican-style government promised the surest way to secure human dignity and sustain a (small “d”) democratic union.
The Federalist Papers are, in effect, commentary on the Constitution. The authors put their pens to paper in support of the binding document for the new Union that would strengthen the gaps found in the Articles of Confederation (more on the Articles in the last post) and secure a form of governance that sought to balance a strong federal government, with state and local concerns, and individual rights, codified in the Bill of Rights.
As you can see, despite my own struggle with reconciling the status and privilege of the framers with their inequities and inequalities, I also feel empowered by coalitions that met in taverns, discussed culture and politics, and drafted essays to convince others to strive toward a more perfect union. Several of them gathered at places like Gadsby’s Tavern, which opened in 1770. So pull up a stool, pour a draft, and let’s read some 200-year-old political philosophy that convinced enough people to vote in favor of the Constitution.
Federalist 1: “General Introduction”
The central issue at stake in Federalist 1 is this question: Are societies capable of good governance through reason and choice? Or does good governance arise simply by accident and force? Our Enlightenment-informed framers will certainly favor a view of governance through reason and choice. Remember, the Enlightenment saw reason and rationality as the principal tools of societal progress and human flourishing. Much to the chagrin of my philosophy degree, I’ll postpone a critique of this view!
Hamilton, the author of Federalist 1, certainly appears committed to the general view that reason and choice are serviceable tools in the enterprise of governance. Hamilton’s view is based on an examination of historical republics and the reasonable application of those principles to modern society.
Jeez! Now I’m writing like them!
Hamilton quickly latches on to this timeless concern—the “most formidable obstacle,” he reasons. Men in state office will fear losing their own power if adopting the Federalist view of a strong, centralized government. He tacitly addresses the concerns of the interlocutor by appealing to moderation: It is good to have moderation, asserts Hamilton, especially for those who are committed to their own rightness.
Wouldn’t you know it, moderation, as a principle, is also a hallmark of the Enlightenment. Notably, French political theorist Montesquieu, who influenced the framers greatly, argued for a balanced and moderate view of governmental powers. Here, we see moderation as an antidote to folk who are convinced of their own rightness.
Hamilton furthers this ideological commitment: As it is in religion, it is, too, in politics: it is best not to convert others by use of the sword. Tacitly in this claim is a doubling down of Enlightenment reason. If not by the sword, then by what means may someone be convinced? Well, you’re reading it! Hamilton asserts in Federalist 1 that after his careful deliberation of these matters, adoption (ratification) of the Constitution is the best outcome. He even offers a logical argument. By analogy to your own state constitution, writes Hamilton, you can adopt this federal constitution. In effect, you’re already under just such a government, and we only mean to expand it.
Balance, moderation, reason, and eschewing force, the Federalists propose this “species of government” to secure liberty and prosperity. And that is Federalist 1, or the “General Introduction.”
What says you? Are you persuaded that good governance can come about by reason and choice, or is it only by accident and force? It seems these issues are perennial. Let me know your thoughts in the comments or join us in the chat!
See you Wednesday with Federalist 10 and 51! And if you think someone in your network would like to pull up a stool at the tavern, feel free to share this post with them. Until next time. -a.