Federalist No. 9

Federalist No. 9
As first published in the Independent Journal, alongside Federalist No. 8

Author	Alexander Hamilton
Original title	The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
Country	United States
Language	English
Series	The Federalist
Publisher	Independent Journal
Publication date	November 21, 1787
Media type	Newspaper
Preceded by	Federalist No. 8
Followed by	Federalist No. 10

Federalist No. 9, titled "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection", is a political essay by Alexander Hamilton and the ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in the New York Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787, under the pseudonym used for all Federalist Papers, Publius. The essay argues that large republics do not inevitably lead to tyranny as his opponents believed. It introduced the problem of factions that was famously the topic of Federalist No. 10, the most influential in the series.

Based on a theory of the political philosopher Montesquieu the Anti-Federalists argued that a republic as large as the United States would be unsustainable. Hamilton responded by citing Montesquieu's claim that a larger republic could exist as a confederation of states, arguing that the republic proposed in the Constitution fit Montesquieu's description. Hamilton also distinguished a potential American republic from the failed republics of ancient Greece and Italy, arguing that insurrection from one state would be kept in check by the others, preventing tyranny from consuming the entire nation.

Summary

Hamilton argued that the American states must remain in a union to avoid the failures of the Ancient Greek and Roman republics. He criticized those who thought that republics are not feasible, contending that new developments in political science allowed for a successful republic and that unions of states throughout history have been shown to benefit their members. Among these advances he cited the separation of powers into distinct departments, legislative checks and balances , judicial service during good behavior, and the election of legislators in representative democracy.

He acknowledged the Anti-Federalist argument against the proposed constitution based on Montesquieu's assertion that only small republics can resist tyranny. He countered that Montesquieu's account does not really apply to the American states. Many states like Massachusetts and Virginia, among others, were already larger than the ones in Montesquieu's argument. To apply his theory would require splitting these states into smaller commonwealths. As he argued in Federalist No. 8, without a union the states would be more prone to clashes and war with one another. He presented the alternatives to the Anti-Federalist argument as either clashes between the states or accepting monarchy. Hamilton quoted a different line of reasoning from Montesquieu to demonstrate the philosopher's support for a confederate republic. He emphasized that such a government would be several states coexisting instead of a single entity. He concluded by quoting Montesquieu's description of Lycia as a successful confederate republic.

Background and publication

Federalist No. 9 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.^[1] Federalist No. 9 was first published in the New York Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787, and then in the New-York Packet on November 23, 1787.^[2] This essay shifted from the previous discussion in Federalist Nos. 6–8, which focused on the potential for military strife that would follow from the breakup of the union. No. 9 turns to the problem of domestic factions.^[3]

Political philosophy in the time of The Federalist Papers held that republics were inherently unstable.^[4] Shortly before the publication of Federalist No. 9, Cato of the Anti-Federalist Papers wrote his third essay in the New-York Journal. He cited The Spirit of Law by the French philosopher Montesquieu which argued that large nations could not survive as republics.^[3] Montesquieu had argued that a large republic was impossible because differences in culture and values would lead to internal tensions.^[5] Montesquieu claimed that the will of the public can only be realized within a small group, while a large nation will see it diluted among different groups within society.^[3]

Analysis

Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 9

Ancient republics

Hamilton opened Federalist No. 9 describing ancient Greece and Rome as mere "petty republics" compared to the proposed union of states of the proposed constitution. By contrasting it with the nations regarded as the founders of Western civilization, he implied that the United States was creating an entirely new type of civilization.^[5][6] This was a rare instance of criticism of the ancient republics in The Federalist Papers.^[7]

Hamilton described the weaknesses of the ancient republics to contrast their failures with the proposed American republic.^[8] He cited modern understanding of political science as an advantage the United States had over the ancient republics.^[5]These included a separation of powers and representative government. To these advantages he added another, "enlargement of the orbit".^[4] Drawing from another part of Montesquieu he turned the argument about the size of the republic from a deficit to an advantage. He argued that the size of the United States should be seen as an advantage because the states can function both as individual entities and as one collective group.^[3] Hamilton's argument in Federalist No. 9 was partly inspired by Madison's comments at the Constitutional Convention. Listening to Madison's speeches, Hamilton wrote into his notes: "the way to prevent a majority from having an interest to oppress the minority is to enlarge the sphere."^[3]

The tone of this essay is more optimistic, unlike most of The Federalist Papers that were presented as a warning. This optimism was based on his belief in scientific progress and Enlightenment philosophy.^[9]

Montesquieu and the Anti-Federalists

The Anti-Federalists objected to the proposed constitution based on the argument from Montesquieu that a large republic would ultimately fail. Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 9 to counter their argument.^[3] The concern over the size of the nation came up frequently in Anti-Federalist Papers by Agrippa, Brutus, Cato, and Centinel. They believed that a union of the states would create a nation too large to be a republic, citing the tyranny that developed as Greece and Rome expanded.^[7] Brutus further argued that it would be unwise to experiment with new forms of government, believing that if it could be done successfully it would have been done already.^[5]

Federalist No. 9 was largely devoted to analyzing the arguments of the Anti-Federalists and Montesquieu.^[3] Montesquieu's ideas on the separation of powers and the role of checks and balances made him the most cited of any political philosopher in The Federalist Papers, but Federalist No. 9 refuted his critique of large republics. The Anti-Federalists presented an argument from authority.^[9] Hamilton rejected the argument noting that the American states were already larger than the ancient republics.^[6] If Montesquieu's analysis was applicable to the United States, then anything other than splitting into countless small entities would cause the nation to fall into monarchy.^[7] Hamilton attempted to refute Montesquieu by quoting a different argument by Montesquieu. He cited Montesquieu's argument that an "assemblage of societies" could prevent the kind of internal corruption that had plagued previous large republics. Hamilton compared Montesquieu's confederation with the federalism proposed by the new constitution. Hamilton also applied Montesquieu's claim that Lycia was an ideal of confederation with its cities of varying size and strength to the proposed union.^[7]

Form of government

One of the foremost purposes of the proposed government was to prevent societal instability caused by a constant military threat between the states and social unrest caused by factions. In the philosophy of Adam Smith, the preservation of stability in this fashion directly benefits everyone in society by allowing a setting for the production of economic value.^[10] Hamilton recognized that good government has to balance absolute liberty which can tend toward anarchy, and social order which can tend toward tyranny. He argued that the new republicanism of the United States would be the first form of government to reliably maintain such a balance.^[5]

Hamilton's argument focused less on a strong central government in Federalist No. 9 than in his previous Federalist Papers, making a distinction between a confederated union of states versus a strong unitary state.^[5] As with the maintenance of a national government, Hamilton believed that only within a republic could the states challenge a national government should it become tyrannical and a revolution become necessary.^[8] Citing Montesquieu, he argued that a union of the states would protect itself from tyranny because any tyrant who gained influence in one state would be opposed by the other states within the union.^[6][4]

Legacy

Federalist No. 9 served as an introduction to the theme of factions addressed in Federalist No. 10. No. 10 was written by James Madison and became the most well-known of The Federalist Papers. Madison picked up Hamilton's concept of "enlarging the orbit" in No. 9, referencing "extending the sphere" in No. 10.^[5] John Quincy Adams mentioned the connection between the two papers when delivering a eulogy for Madison.^[3] He described Nos. 9 and 10 as "rival dissertations on Faction and its remedy."^[11] Hamilton's approach of strengthening the national government contrasted with Madison's more republican inclination.^[3] After Madison's writings in No. 10, Hamilton revisited the government's ability to suppress dangerous factions several more times throughout The Federalist Papers.^[11]

Madison revisited the ideal size of a republic in Federalist No. 14, arguing that a democracy must be small while a republic can be small or large, challenging the Anti-Federalists argument based on Montesquieu.^[11] Hamilton repeated his belief that Lycia was the ideal confederation in Federalist No. 16, offering a more refined version of the argument and adding the Achaeans as another example.^[7] Madison made another attempt to define the Federalist government in Federalist No. 39, but it differed with Hamilton's argument in Federalist No. 9.^[6] Additional essays in the series continued Hamilton's challenge against Anti-Federalist invocations of Montesquieu.^[9]

Other Federalists participated in the Montesquieu debate separately from The Federalist Papers: Americanus disagreed that European philosophies applied to the circumstances of the United States, while A Citizen of America wrote that the ancient republics lacked the core values of republicanism held by Americans.^[7] Hamilton again addressed the issue of large republics when helping George Washington draft his Farewell Address, though Washington chose not to include the passage.^[3]

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cited Federalist No. 9 in Heath v. Alabama (1985) to demonstrate specific aspects of sovereignty that states are expected to have, though this was not a significant influence in her overall argument.^[12]

Footnotes

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Bederman, David J. The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution: Prevailing Wisdom. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0521187619
• Durchslag, Melvyn R. "The Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers: Is There Less Here Than Meets the Eye?". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 14 (1) (2005): 292.
• Epstein, David F. The Political Theory of The Federalist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0226213002
• Furtwangler, Albert. The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984, ISBN 978-0801416439
• Grofman, Bernard, and Donald Whittman (eds.). The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism. Sanford, NC: Algora Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0875860850
• Levinson, Sanford. An Argument Open to All: Reading “The Federalist” in the 21st Century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0300199598
• Millican, Edward. One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2014. ISBN 978-0813160337
• 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
• Rakove, Jack N., and Colleen A. Sheehan, (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to the Federalist Papers Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2020. ISBN 978-1107136397
• Scott, Kyle. The Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. London, U.K.: A&C Black, 2013. ISBN 1441185860

External links

All links retrieved August 29, 2026.

• Full text of Federalist No. 9 Avalon Project
• "Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History," U.S. Library of Congress.
• "Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers," U.S. Library of Congress.
• The Federalist (Dawson)/9 Wikisource