Seth Kaller, Inc.

The Federalist Papers, a series of 85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, were published between October 1787 and May 1788 under the pen name “Publius,” urging New Yorkers to ratify the proposed Constitution.

This fundamental essay, written by Alexander Hamilton, was published just eleven days after the first newspaper printing—on October 27, 1787, in The New York Packet and The Independent Journal. It provides an outline for the rest of the essays, arguing for the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation and the necessity of checks and balances that would allow the new government to be sufficiently strong without endangering the liberty of the people. Subsequent numbers were published in these two newspapers. The Federalist Papers were published in book form in 1788.

“[I]t seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, to decide by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are for ever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.... the noble enthusiasm of liberty is too apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust....”

“[I]t will be equally forgotten...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]. “Publius,” Federalist Paper No. 1, “To the People of the State of New York,” The Pennsylvania Journal, and the Weekly Advertiser, November 7, 1787. Philadelphia, PA: Thomas Bradford. 4 pp., 10 x 15¾ in.

Inventory #27488       Price: $12,500

Historical Background
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay combined their considerable talents to pen a collection of 85 articles and essays under the collective pseudonym “Publius” to support the ratification of the United States Constitution by conventions in each of the states. The first 77 articles were published serially in New York newspapers between October 1787 and April 1788 and widely copied in newspapers throughout the nation. Overall, Hamilton authored 51 essays, Madison contributed 29, and Jay wrote only 5 because he fell ill after writing several of the early numbers. Some of the essays were collaborative efforts between Hamilton and Madison.

In Federalist Paper No. 1, first published in New York in late October 1787, Alexander Hamilton provides an outline for the additional essays and argues for the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation. He outlines six key topics for the remainder of the Federalist Papers: (1) the utility of the Union to posterity; (2) the insufficiency of the existing confederation to preserve the Union; (3) the necessity of a government as powerful as that proposed; (4) the conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of Republican government; (5) the proposed Constitution’s analogy to various state constitutions; and (6) the additional security the Constitution will provide to the preservation of the state governments and to the preservation of liberty and property.

Additional Content
This issue also includes news of the positive reception in New Jersey of the Constitution: “the report of the Convention meets with the greatest approbation in this state. All ranks are highly animated with the pleasing hope, that this glorious structure, supported by thirteen pillars, will speedily be completed. The patriots who have assisted in the above work, have deserved well of their country; their names shall brighten the annals of America, and their memory be forever revered, not as the lords and peers, but as the FATHERS of AMERICA.” (p3/c2) [New Jersey became the third state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, on December 18, 1787, by a vote of 38-0]; a warning against British agents who were sending machines out of the country and seducing skilled manufacturers to leave the country (p3/c2), the text of “A Supplement to an act of General Assembly, entitled, An Act for erecting the southern suburbs of the city of Philadelphia into the district of Southwark, for making the streets and roads already laid out therein, public roads and highways, and for regulating such other streets and roads as the inhabitants may hereafter lay out, and for other uses and purposes therein mentioned,” (p2/c1-p3/c1) and the text of “An Act for furnishing the quota of troops required by Congress for the protection of the western frontiers” (p3/c1), both under consideration in the General Assembly; several notices of sheriff’s sales (p1/c1-2; p3/c3); and a variety of other advertisements and notices, including an offer of a $6 reward for the arrest of two apprentice boys who ran away from shoemaker Francis Springer (1745-1802) (p3/c3).

We have not found any other offering of a newspaper printing of Federalist Paper No. 1in 50 years of market records. OCLC does not locate any copies institutionally and we could not locate any copies of this issue appearing at auction.

The Pennsylvania Journal, or, Weekly Advertiser (1742-1793) was published weekly in Philadelphia by William Bradford (1719-1791) under slightly varying titles. On October 31, 1765, Bradford published a skull and crossbones on the masthead to announce that he would be stopping publication rather than submit to the Stamp Act, which required newspapers to be printed on stamped and taxed paper. Like many other colonial newspapers, though, Bradford continued weekly publication in defiance of the Stamp Act. From mid-1774 to late 1775, each issue of the newspaper included a snake chopped into segments with the motto “Unite or Die” on the masthead.  When the Revolutionary War began, William Bradford joined the Pennsylvania militia, while his son Thomas continued to publish the newspaper. After the war, he and his son were partners in the publication, which was issued semiweekly. It supported the Federalist position on the Constitution and published four of the first five numbers of The Federalist in November 1787 issues. Thomas Bradford continued the journal after his father’s death, eventually changing its name to the True American.

Complete Transcript

The FŒDERALIST.
To the People of the State of NEW YORK.

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences, nothing less than the existence of the Union, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire, in many respects, the most interesting in the world. 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. 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.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism to heighten the solicitude, which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiassed by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations, affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

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 aggrandise 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.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candour will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable, the honest errors of minds led astray by pre-conceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes, which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions, of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those, who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. 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. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more illjudged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterised political parties. For, in politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

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 by the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for <p2/c1> 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 overscrupulous 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 pretence and artifice; the [stale]bait for popularity at the expence of public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of violent love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is too apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten, that the vigour 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.

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 what ever 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. 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. I affect not reserves, which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation, when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not however multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast: My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit, which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars—the utility of the UNION to your political prosperity—the insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve that union—the necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object—the conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government—its analogy to your own State constitution—and lastly, the additional security, which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty and to property.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined has no adversaries. 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.* This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. 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.

                                                                        PUBLIUS.

* The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new constitution.