Were the authors of The Federalist Papers admirers or critics of democracy?

The Federalist Papers were written with the intention of educating the public as to the workings of the new US Constitution. Within the pages of the 85 articles, the authors sought to persuade the residents of New York State to ratify the document prescribing the framework of the new republic. The Articles of the Confederation, drawn up between 1781 and 1787 (post the Declaration of Independence), had prescribed a structure in which the 13 colonies were given extremely limited powers of participation in a quasi-representative ‘Continental Congress’. Each state had one vote and representation was minimal. In essence, the system was devoid of democratic procedure. This said, the drive for change came not as a result of a desire for greater democracy, but from a number of contemporary economic and international issues – most notably the need for protection against the British monarchy. The Constitutional Convention was set up in 1787, which drew up a system based on representation in Congress on a basis proportional to the population of each state. A few months later the first draft of the Constitution was completed, and the first of the Federalist Papers published in support of it. The issue of democracy, or the democtraticness of the new framework as laid out in the constitution, all though ever present and all pervading in their writing, was never a central focus of debate for Hamilton, Madison and Jay. The essays concentrate primarily on the merits of federal Republicanism; a system of government which inherently grants sovereignty to the people. The democratic nature of the outlined system is rarely discussed but largely inherent – the central issue of debate, particularly for Hamilton and Madison, was that of the relationship between liberty and power within the Republican framework. Madison and Hamilton were the chief contributors to the papers, and it is them that I shall concentrate on in this essay. In an attempt to explore the extent of democratic intention in the Papers, I will analyse the varied interpretations of the terms democracy and Republicanism and the philosophy of each author individually, seeking to explain the political ideas which drove their advocacy of the new Constitution and to discover what part a desire for a democratic nation played in their arguments.

In answering this question one must first establish a definition of ‘democracy’ in the context of the time, bearing in mind that the concept did not necessarily mean the same to the federalists as it does to us in contemporary politics. While the Constitution that the federalists were advocating was in many ways democratic (even by our modern standards), the franchise was unarguably limited – women, for instance, were not even considered worthy of voting rights for another 150 years. Slavery was allowed to exist in abundance throughout the US for another 100 years, despite the opening and (supposedly) all pervading constitutional doctrine that ‘…all men were created equal.’ It is important to remember, however, that political thought at this time was not, and could not have been as mature and universally developed as it is today (in the sphere of Western democracy). Indeed, while the direct translation from the Greek gives us ‘rule by the people’, as a definition of democracy this is an extremely vague and unhelpful basis for analysis. While we in contemporary politics have a more or less broad understanding of the term as encompassing a system of representation with universal suffrage for all adult citizens, at the time the Papers were published, ideas about ‘democracy’ fell mostly into the ‘classical’ camp – that is, the word conjured up images of the assemblies of ancient Athens when the eligible electorate would debate and devise policy directly at huge assemblies. Many saw the Athenian model of direct democracy as an extremely dangerous structure, giving too much power to a divided and relatively incompetent electorate of ordinary citizens. It would be safer in this context to ascribe a less literal definition to the term democracy, something more like ‘a system of representative government based on popular sovereignty’. If this is our premise, the question of whether Hamilton and Madison were generally advocating a government based on the principles of democracy becomes a lot easier to answer.

This is a preview of the whole essay

As I said earlier, the central tenet of the Federalist papers was a defence of republicanism as prescribed in the new constitution, rather than a direct backing of democracy as a way of government. Although the two concepts are inherently related, republicanism does not necessarily encompass an automatically democratic element. In its purest definition, it requires only the absence of a monarch. Where John Locke had defined republicanism as based on principles of individualism and public consent, much of the republicanism of the 18th century concentrated instead on ideas of self-restraint and control of government for the common good. This model was not grounded in a democratic basis, was often open to abuse by those in power, and ‘restricted active citizenship to the few’. Indeed, the concept of republicanism in this context was fundamentally compatible with patriarchy and elite society, rendering it inherently undemocratic and unrepresentative – particularly as we understand the terms today. Pitted against the ideas of Madison and Hamilton, therefore, this may seem to render them clear opponents of democratic principle. Here, therefore, we return to the problem of definition in determining the meaning of democracy.

So to what extent was the constitution they were defending democratic? In many ways it was indisputably and fundamentally democratic. The division of powers as outlined in the constitution to ensure checks and balances against the power of each branch of government, (defended in Federalist no. 51), was of fundamental importance to the Federalists. Indeed, much of the writing of Hamilton and Madison was concerned with the correct implementation of ‘auxiliary precautions’ which would protect the liberty of citizens against an over-powerful government. The Federalist view on the separation of powers with regards to citizen liberty is best summed up in the following extract;

‘In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.’

In so far as the concept of democracy encompasses this necessity (which in a modern context it necessarily does), the Federalists were unarguably advocates. The reference above to the ‘security… [of]… the rights of the people’ makes clear this advocacy.

The issue of the much disputed ‘bill of rights’, initiated by the so-called ‘anti-federalists’, is another useful topic of debate in analysing the democratic intentions of Hamilton and Madison. While the federalists advocated a centrally governed federation, the anti-federalists (initially a group of anonymous writers, later including outspoken revolutionaries such as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson) believed that the strong governmental power of the new centralised system would infringe on the liberties of the citizens. In redress of this perceived threat, the anti-federalists proposed the ‘bill of rights’, a list of entrenched rights for American citizens that would be guaranteed at all times by the Constitution, and not subject to change by the government of the day. The anti-federalists saw this as a vital component to the
Constitution, which not all of them opposed entirely. Many anti-federalists agreed that the Articles of the Confederation were weak and needed replacing, but felt equally that the Constitution gave the government too much power. The bill of rights was initially fiercely opposed by the Federalists, particularly Hamilton, who believed the danger of such a bill would be that it would become a list of the only rights guaranteed to Americans, thus becoming a constraint on the liberties of citizens rather than an enhancement of them. Hamilton addressed this issue in ‘Federalist 84’ with the assertion that; ‘…bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.’ Although the anti-federalists essentially lost the debate at the constitutional convention, a compromise was reached and the Bill of Rights, despite the opposition of Hamilton, was passed in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution at the first congress of 1789.

It would not be fair to assume, however, that Hamilton’s opposition to the Bill of Rights was based in an inherently undemocratic desire to constrain citizen liberty under an all-powerful central government, although this was the grounds for the anti-federalist argument. Indeed, Hamilton was all for liberty, believing society was divided into ‘the few’ and ‘the many’, and that power should be concentrated in the hands of both if tyranny was to be avoided. In this sense Hamilton took a Hobbsian view of governmental responsibility – ‘…that the objective of government was the aversion of social conflict.’

Madison and Hamilton are often described as having disagreed on the way in which the principles of governmental power and citizen liberty should be balanced by the Constitution. In fact, their opinions never differed very widely on this question. While Madison is typically credited with having more concern about the liberties of the people than with the powers of government, the opposite is true of Hamilton. The typical view of his ideology focuses on the ‘energy and efficiency’ of government. Another argument, however, (his own), states that Hamilton was in fact a great proponent of strong citizen freedom, ‘as zealous an advocate for liberty as any man whatever’, conceding himself that even the most energetic and efficient government must be rejected if these attributes come at the expense of liberty. Madison, on the other hand, saw no opportunity for a trade off between liberty and power; he stated that liberty is equally vulnerable, ‘whether the government has too much or too little power’. For him, the question was one of ‘clear boundaries between what is permitted and what is not’ on the question of governmental versus popular sovereignty – the actual extent of power was not important. Hamilton’s opposing concerns came in his view that, under the federal system, the amount of power vested in government was extremely important, not as a balance against citizen liberty, but against the ‘wolves of state sovereignty’, which he saw as the greatest danger to the principle of popular sovereignty. It is here that Madison and Hamilton differed somewhat, on the question of popular sovereignty with regards to the balance of national and state government. Where Madison believed that a sovereign electorate, backed by a strong constitution, would have sufficient power to regulate the relationship between national and state power (hence a concentration on sovereignty as the important issue), Hamilton saw this as a ‘dangerous delusion’, believing that such a power contest would remain well out of the reaches of the people, and therefore needed careful prescription and regulation. It is worth noting here that this is not a disagreement as to the republican (or democratic) principle, nor yet a division about the amount of liberty granted to the people, but an argument as to how best secure a stable federal state based on popular sovereignty. They are agreed on the desirable ends; it is the means which are under dispute.

The question of federal versus state power was central to this debate, and perhaps the biggest division between the political ideas of Hamilton and Madison. For Hamilton, with his incessant drive for increased national power, state sovereignty posed a real problem. While it is easy to read from his centralized political proposal that governmental power came first over citizen liberty, this was not in fact his philosophy. His concern with a strong central power came not, he argued, at the expense of citizen liberty, but at the expense of state sovereignty – his main argument was that ‘…Two Sovereignties cannot exist within the same limits.’ This could be argued to be an opposition to extensive democracy – surely the more representation a population has, on multiple levels, the more democratic a framework they live within.

Madison’s view on national versus state sovereignty was less a question of balance. He advocated a system in which the boundaries of governmental power (be it regional or national) must be clearly pitted against the liberties granted to the citizens. He saw the biggest threat to liberty as coming not from an overly powerful government, but from factions rising from within society itself. He believed, as I said earlier, that the contest between national and state power could be safely left to resolution by the sovereign electorate.

The question of press freedom is another useful topic of analysis, as both Hamilton and Madison were strong believers in the doctrine, though to differing degrees. Madison, it must be said, was more puritanical in his defense of the idea of a free press, while Hamilton’s views were balanced with a desire for a defense against ‘seditious libel’. Freedom of the press is an essential component of any democratic nation today, and the same was true in 1787. It is therefore in part an indicator of the democratic intentions of Madison and Hamilton to study their approaches to the issue. Madison’s view on the press was very clear; it was to be free from any governmental constraints or authority whatsoever. He mentioned press freedom in the same breath as religious freedom, claiming that ‘Both…rest equally on the original ground of not being delegated by the constitution, and consequently withheld from the government.’ He believed that the doctrine of seditious libel was a mere relic of British governmental authority, not compatible with the principles of republicanism.

Hamilton, as I said earlier, held a more conservative view. He supported the doctrine of seditious libel, which stated that the government and its officials ‘…deserve special protection against writings that have a tendency to subvert public order’. Some, including Madison, saw an element of hypocrisy in Hamilton’s thesis: how could he claim that a free press was of fundamental importance if he advocated a press that was in any way restricted? Hamilton saw no contradiction in his assertion. His argument was that the principle of seditious libel was not to restrict the press, but to offer the defense of ‘the truth’ to those who see themselves as having had damaging material written about them in error. ‘The truth’, so said the law, did not guarantee excuse from the allegation, but could be submitted in defense. While at first glance it may appear that Madison was in favour of a generally more democratic approach to press liberty, on closer inspection it is clear that Hamilton was not in effect any less democratic. The seditious libel law he supported merely offered a defense to public officials against any public lies told in attack on their character or integrity. Indeed, if one looks at Hamilton’s own statement with regards the importance of press liberty, he could not be said to have missed the democratic point. He emphasized the role of the press with regards to bad government and said that, should any unlawful or unpopular measure be introduced, it was the responsibility of the press ‘…to hold up to the people who is the author, that, in this our free and elective government, he be removed from the seat of power. If this be not to be done, then in vain will the voice of the people be raised against the inroads of tyranny.’

In conclusion, we have seen primarily that the system of government advocated by the Federalists was undoubtedly democratic in its nature. The constitution prescribes a widely representative system of government in which many of the principles of democracy are inherent; the workings of the document ensure against the dangers of tyranny and oppression through the checks and balances of government, the rights of citizens are entrenched and protected both by the electoral system and the structure of power distribution. While the franchise of the original constitution was not all encompassing, the framework of the proposed system allowed for the subsequent amendments we have seen to extend it – the abolition of slavery, the extension of the franchise to women. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the principle contributors to ‘The Federalist Papers’, both stood in direct support of this democratically grounded constitution. Madison, often viewed as the greater champion of liberty, was an undoubted advocate of democratic principle. His primary concern was with basic threats to liberty, which he saw arising from many different sources. His answer to this was to alter governmental power more or less, always with the ultimate objective of the preservation of liberty. Agreeing on clear boundaries for the distribution of power was of the essence for Madison, not how much power was actually vested in any government. In this sense the philosophy of Madison was more complex and organic than that of Hamilton, who saw the power versus liberty argument in more absolute terms. Hamilton, though often seen as more concerned with the correct implementation of power than with liberty, would argue that the two are inseparable – that liberty without the correct implementation of power cannot exist. Liberty for a sovereign people, in Hamilton’s view, can only be achieved by a government powerful enough to grant that liberty. Both men were clearly concerned with liberty, and as such both had the best interests of popular sovereignty at heart. As I stated earlier, the divisions in ideology between Madison and Hamilton came not in disputing principles of democracy or republicanism – both believed in both. Disagreement came in deciding how best to achieve the universally desirable system of representative popular sovereignty. To this end, the authors of the Federalist Papers were unquestionable admirers of democracy.

Were the authors of The Federalist Papers admirers or critics of democracy?

Bibliography

LK Kerber; The Revolutionary Generation (American Historical Association, 1991)
Hamilton/ Madison; The Federalist Papers, Federalist 51(Wikipedia.org, 2005)
Alexander Hamilton; The Federalist Papers, Federalist 84 (Wikipedia.org, 2005)
Lynton Caldwell; The Administrative Theories of Hamilton & Jefferson (Holmes & Meier 2nd ed., 1987)
J Read; Alexander Hamilton as Libertarian and Nationalist in Power versus Liberty (Virginia University Press, 2000)
J Read; James Madison on Power and Liberty in Power versus Liberty (Virginia University Press, 2000)