Federalist No. 9

Federalist No. 9, titled "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection", is a political essay by Alexander Hamilton and the eighth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in the Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. It expressed ideas that became the foundation of Federalist No. 10, the most influential of The Federalist Papers.

Federalist No. 9 was a rebuttal to an anti-federalist argument that a republic as large as the United States would be unsustainable. The argument was based on a similar premise by the political philosopher Montesquieu. Hamilton responded by quoting Montesquieu, presenting the argument that a larger republic could exist as a confederation of states like the one proposed in the constitution. Hamilton distinguished a potential American republic from the failed republics of ancient Greece and Italy, arguing insurrection from one state would be kept in check by the others, preventing tyranny from consuming the entire nation.

Summary
Publius begins by arguing that the American states must be united to avoid the failures of ancient republics in Greece and Italy, and he criticizes those who think that republics are not feasible. He argues that new developments in political science allow for a successful republic and that unions of states has been shown throughout history to benefit their members.

Publius acknowledges the argument of Montesquieu, promoted by opponents of the constitution, that only small republics can resist tyranny. To challenge this, he says that the American states are too large for this to be an effective argument and it leads to the conclusion that they must be split into small commonwealths that would go to war with one another. Publius then uses another argument of Montesquieu to challenge his opponents. He quotes Montesquieu to demonstrate the philosopher's support for a confederate republic to accommodate a larger state. Publius emphasizes that such a government would be several states coexisting instead of a single entity, and he concludes by quoting Montesquieu's description of Lycia as a successful confederate republic.

Background and publication
Federalist No. 9 was written by Alexander Hamilton. Like all of The Federalist Papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius in New York newspapers to explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it. It was first published in the Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787, and then in the New-York Packet on November 23, 1787.

Ancient republics
Hamilton took a strong position in the opening of Federalist No. 9, describing ancient Greece and Rome as mere "petty republics" compared to 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. Hamilton's dismissal of the ancient republics was reminiscent of Niccolò Machiavelli, who criticized the viability of ancient Italian republicanism. This was a rare instance in The Federalist Papers that did not look back at the ancient republics fondly.

Political philosophy in the time of The Federalist Papers held that republics were inherently unstable, and Hamilton described the weaknesses of these historic republics so he could distance previous failures from the republic he wished to create. He cited modern understanding of political science as an advantage the United States had over the ancient republics, including separation of powers, representative government, and the "enlargement of the orbit" of the republic. Unlike most of The Federalist Papers that take a tone of warning, this view presents an optimism derived from Enlightenment philosophy.

Montesquieu and the anti-federalists
The goal of Federalist No. 9 was to counter an argument by Montesquieu that was raised by the anti-federalists. Montesquieu had argued that a large republic was impossible because such a large group of people could not share the same culture and values. This idea was pushed heavily in the Anti-Federalist Papers, where Agrippa, Brutus, Cato, and Centinel all argued the point. They believed that a unification of the states would create a nation too large to be a republic, citing the tyranny that developed as Greece and Rome expanded. Brutus further argued that it would be unwise to experiment with new forms of government.

Montesquieu was the most referenced of any political philosopher in The Federalist Papers, but Federalist No. 9 referenced his ideas to refute them, rejecting the argument from authority presented by the anti-federalists. Hamilton noted that the American states were already larger than the ancient republics, and argued that 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. One Montesquieu quote cited by Hamilton proposed an "assemblage of societies", similar to the federalism Hamilton supported. Hamilton also presented Montesquieu's suggestion that Lycia was an ideal of confederation with its cities of varying size and strength.

Form of government
Hamilton described good government as a balance between anarchy and tyranny, arguing that the new republicanism of the United States would be the first form of government to reliably maintain such a balance. One of the foremost purposes of the proposed government cited by Hamilton was to prevent societal instability caused by a constant military threat between the states. 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.

Hamilton is less adamant about a strong central government in Federalist No. 9 relative to his position in the previous Federalist Papers, making a distinction between a confederated union of states versus a strong unitary state. As with the maintenance of a national government, Hamilton believed that only in unification could the states challenge a national government should a revolution become necessary. 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.

Aftermath
Federalist No. 9 served as a lead-in to Federalist No. 10, which was written by James Madison and became the most influential of The Federalist Papers. Hamilton's concept of "enlarging the orbit" in No. 9 was reintroduced in No. 10 as "extending the sphere". John Quincy Adams later described Nos. 9 and 10 as "rival dissertations on Faction and its remedy", though No. 10 addresses the issue more directly. After Madison's writings in No. 10, Hamilton revisited the government's ability to suppress dangerous factions several more times throughout The Federalist Papers.

Madison revisited the ideal size of a republic in Federalist No. 14, when he said that a democracy must be small while a republic can be small or large, challenging anti-federalists who would invoke Montesquieu. Hamilton repeated his belief that Lycia was the ideal confederation in Federalist No. 16, adding the Achaeans as another example. Another attempt was made to define the federalist government in Federalist No. 39, but it is not consistent with the one laid out in Federalist No. 9. Additional essays in the series continued Hamilton's challenge against anti-federalist invocations of Montesquieu. 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, and A Citizen of America wrote that the ancient republics lacked the core values of republicanism held by Americans.

Federalist No. 9 was cited by Sandra Day O'Connor in Heath v. Alabama (1985) to demonstrate that there are specific aspects of sovereignty that states are expected to have, though it was not a significant influence in her overall argument. How to apply developments in political science has remained a controversial issue. In the United States, the usefulness of scientific claims may be challenged by religious arguments that science is another form of faith or the postmodernist idea that there is no such thing as scientific truth. Modern political terminology has affected the meanings of union and confederacy. While Hamilton described his desired federalist government as a confederacy, the term is now more commonly associated with a looser collection of states, which Hamilton opposed.