Federalist No. 25

Federalist No. 25
Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 25

Author	Alexander Hamilton
Original title	The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
Country	United States
Language	English
Series	The Federalist
Publisher	New York Packet
Publication date	December 21, 1787
Media type	Newspaper
Preceded by	Federalist No. 24
Followed by	Federalist No. 26

Federalist No. 25, titled "The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered", is a political essay written by Alexander Hamilton and the twenty-fifth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in New York newspapers on December 21, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. It is one of two essays by Hamilton arguing in favor of a national standing army during peacetime, following his argument in Federalist No. 24.

Federalist No. 25 was written as an argument against the use of armies led by the states. Hamilton argued that a national army would be more accountable than state armies, as national control would be divided through separation of powers and serve in the interest of all states. He warned that individual state armies might not come to the aid of other states in need of defense. Also, states might use their armies against the interest of the nation. Hamilton also used Federalist No. 25 to argue that standing armies are preferable to militias. Constitutional restrictions could be ignored if they are against the interest of the nation, as had already happened in two states.

Summary

Still considering the criticism of maintaining the national forces from Federalist No. 24, Publius argued against the idea that states should maintain their own militias. He favored a national military. In explaining the danger, Publius demonstrated that the territories of foreign nations surrounded the entirety of the nation, posing a common danger to all the states. If there were only state militias, if a state like New York were attacked it would be forced to provide all of its defense with no guarantee of support from other states. Publius was also concerned that state militias could support their own interests above those of the nation. He further argued that the people would be less suspicious of the misuse of a national military than the armies by individual states.

Publius rejected the use of state militias as not as efficient as a standing army. Returning to his argument in Federalist No. 24, he argued over the opposition of the Anti-Federalists, arguing for importance of a standing national army during times of peace. He explained that if the national forces could only be summoned during times of war, the nation would leave itself vulnerable to an initial strike. He then questioned whether a restriction on standing armies would be effective. The government itself would decide what constitutes a standing army. Since abuse of the army would require control over both the legislature and the executive, it was not likely. Even with the prohibition a pretext to abuse the army could be fabricated even if restrictions existed. He pointed to the examples of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts which raised militias to quell internal threats notwithstanding its constitutional prohibitions. He concluded his argument by saying any restriction that becomes too much of a hindrance will be ignored, and that ignoring restrictions in emergencies will make people more complacent in ignoring them at other times.

Background and publication

Federalist No. 25 was written by Alexander Hamilton. Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Hamilton worked with James Madison and John Jay to write a series of essays to explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it. They published these essays in New York newspapers under the shared pseudonym Publius. It was first published in the Daily Advertiser, the New-York Packet and the New-York Journal on December 21, 1787. It was then published in the Independent Journal on December 22.

Federalist No. 25 continued the argument of Federalist No. 24 in favor of a standing army. This had been a point of contention when forming the national government under the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton was a member of the committee during those discussion in 1783. Here Hamilton had proposed a compromise of a small army totaling about 3,000 soldiers, supplemented by a part-time reserve force.

Analysis

Hamilton in his military uniform with the New York Provincial Company of Artillery; he argued that a standing army was preferable to a state militia.

Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 25 that oversight of the army should be the responsibility of the national government, not the state governments. He described leaving the defense of the nation to the states as "a project oppressive to some States, dangerous to all, and baneful to the Confederacy." He warned that putting individual states in charge of their own armies would lead to imbalances that could undermine the nation as a whole. Some states naturally had more resources or were more exposed to the territories of other powers like Britain and Spain.

Warning that states in a federal system are always at risk of rivalry, he speculated that allowing states their own armies would tempt states to engage in conflict with one another or with the national government. As with Federalist No. 24, Hamilton maintained that a standing army is preferential to a militia, as those responsible for defense should be well-practiced. His belief on the matter was influenced by the Revolutionary War, which he felt was not well-fought by the American militias. He felt that the nation could not be respected, either by its own people or by foreign nations, without a strong means of defense.

Hamilton warned that the United States was in a particularly vulnerable position because of its geography. Without a standing army it would be "naked and defenseless," inviting hostility. He expressed his concern that without a standing army, the country would be forced to wait until hostilities had already begun in order to begin to prepare for its defense. Without a standing army, the national government would still be forced to make the decision of when the nation was in danger, and how long to provision it. Since the danger could persist in the absence of actual fighting, they would still be likely to keep an army in order to protect the nation, and thus in essence have a standing army. So, once formed there might be any number of reasons to maintain the army.

The bias against forming a standing army would lead, in Hamilton's view, to an obscene outcome - that the nation would be constitutionally bound to wait until attacked to defend itself. Hamilton dismissed arguments that a standing army would enable tyranny by invoking the separation of powers that limited the executive's control over military affairs.

Hamilton believed that a national army would invite more scrutiny than state armies, allowing for greater accountability. Knowing that citizens were more closely aligned with their state governments than the national government, Hamilton believed that the people were in the most danger "when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." This was a dilemma for supporters of ratification: they believed that skepticism of the people would be a check on the national government, but they also needed the support of the people to create such a government.

Hamilton also used Federalist No. 25 to explain that a constitution must not rule "counter to the necessities of society," as such provisions would likely be ignored by politicians when necessary. Citing recent examples in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, he showed that in the case of emergency, they raised militias for the purpose of defending their states without the proper legal authorization. He speculated that even if disallowed by the constitution, a standing army would be raised any time a thread was perceived. He further suggested that violations of the constitution, even in urgent situations, would set precedent in favor of ignoring the constitution in other circumstances.

Legacy

The Federalist Papers later revisited the argument that the constitution must not put undue restrictions on the government that will be ignored, discussing it in Federalists No. 40, No. 41, and No. 48. Federalist No. 25 has been cited in cases before the Supreme Court of the United States: Lewis F. Powell Jr. cited it in Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (1984) and Wayte v. United States (1985), and John Paul Stevens cited it in Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990).

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Durchslag, Melvyn R. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 14 (2005): 336–337, 342.
• Edling, Max M. “‘A Vigorous National Government’: Hamilton on Security, War, and Revenue.” The Cambridge Companion to the Federalist Papers. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2020. ISBN 978-1316501849
• Epstein, David F. The Political Theory of The Federalist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0226213002
• Kramnick, Isaac. "The 'Great National Discussion': The Discourse of Politics in 1787," The William and Mary Quarterly 45 (1988): 8–9. Retrieved April 25, 2026.
• Levinson, Sanford. An Argument Open to All: Reading “The Federalist” in the 21st Century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0300199598
• Potter, Kathleen O. The Federalist's Vision of Popular Sovereignty in the New American Republic. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2002. ISBN 978-1931202442
• Millican, Edward. One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2014. ISBN 978-0813160337
• Scott, Kyle. The Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. London, U.K.: A&C Black, 2013. ISBN 1441185860

External links

All links retrieved May 27, 2026.

• Full text of Federalist No. 25 Avalon Project
• The Federalist (Dawson)/25 Wikisource
• "Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers," U. S. Library of Congress
• "Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History" U. S. Library of Congress

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Federalist No. 25  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Federalist No. 25"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.