The Federalist No. 46
The Relative Influence of the Federal and State Governments Compared
Historical Context
Federalist No. 46 addresses Anti-Federalist fears that the federal government would overpower the states. Madison argues that states retain numerous advantages, including the attachment of the people and, crucially, an armed citizenry that would vastly outnumber any federal army.
Key Arguments
- State Advantages: States closer to the people, control militia officers
- Armed Population: American citizens uniquely armed compared to Europe
- Mathematical Superiority: 500,000 armed citizens vs. 25-30,000 troops
- European Contrast: Disarmed populations under monarchies
Second Amendment Connection
Madison's famous calculation of "half a million of citizens with arms in their hands" is frequently cited as evidence of the Founders' expectation that individual citizens would be armed as a check on tyranny.
Key Excerpts
On State vs. Federal Attachment
Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise... With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant.
The Famous Armed Citizens Calculation
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
Madison's Math
- US population (1788): ~3 million free persons
- Maximum standing army: 1/100 of population = 30,000
- Citizens able to bear arms: ~500,000
- Ratio: 17 armed citizens to 1 soldier
The European Contrast
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
Critical Points
- Americans uniquely possess "the advantage of being armed"
- European governments "afraid to trust the people with arms"
- Armed citizens could "shake off their yokes" even in Europe
- State control of militia officers adds additional protection
On the Improbability of Federal Tyranny
But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity? In the midst of a kingdom of more than twenty millions of people, where public opinion was left free to express itself, and the natural attachment was to the governments of the States rather than to that of the Union, would not opposition from numerous States, backed by the population at large, check ambition at the very outset?
What would be the contest in such a case? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.
Final Reassurance
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition... But it is evident that this could never be done without exciting the notice and alarm of the people...
The people would see and feel the approaching danger, would perceive the necessity of adequate means of defense, and would be ready to unite in repelling the evil. In such a situation, the States would have every advantage over the federal government.
Significance for Second Amendment
Key Takeaways
- Individual Arms: Madison assumes citizens personally possess arms
- American Exceptionalism: Armed citizenry distinguishes America from Europe
- Check on Tyranny: Armed citizens are ultimate safeguard
- Numbers Matter: Mathematical impossibility of tyranny with armed population
- State-Federal Balance: Armed citizens support state resistance to federal overreach
Supreme Court Citations
Federalist No. 46 features prominently in Second Amendment jurisprudence:
DC v. Heller (2008)
"As the most important early American edition of Blackstone's Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.' ... That is what Madison said in Federalist 46."
— Justice Scalia, DC v. Heller
Printz v. United States (1997)
Justice Scalia cited Federalist 46 for the principle that states retain sovereignty and cannot be commandeered by federal government.
Madison's Assumptions
The essay reveals Madison's baseline assumptions:
- Citizens naturally possess arms (no mention of providing them)
- Arms ownership is widespread (500,000 armed citizens)
- Citizens can effectively use arms (capable of military resistance)
- Armed citizens loyal to states over federal government
- This arrangement protects liberty
The European Comparison
Madison's View of European Monarchies
Madison contrasts American and European approaches to armed populations:
| Aspect | America | Europe |
|---|---|---|
| Citizens Armed | Yes - "advantage of being armed" | No - governments "afraid to trust" |
| Military Balance | 500,000 citizens vs. 30,000 troops | Large armies, disarmed populations |
| Government Trust | Trust citizens with arms | Fear armed citizens |
| Liberty Protection | Armed citizens check tyranny | Standing armies oppress |
Historical Context
Madison wrote during an era of European absolutism. The French Revolution (beginning 1789) would soon demonstrate what Madison suggested: that armed citizens could "shake off their yokes."
Anti-Federalist Response
Remaining Concerns
Despite Madison's reassurances, Anti-Federalists maintained concerns:
- Gradual Disarmament: Federal government could slowly disarm citizens
- Militia Control: Federal training could create dependency
- Standing Army Growth: Military could expand beyond Madison's estimates
- Need for Explicit Protection: Why not explicitly protect arms rights?
Patrick Henry's Response
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before: that is, by making them useless—by disarming them."
— Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention (June 1788)
Result: The Second Amendment
These persistent concerns, despite Madison's calculations, led to the Second Amendment's explicit protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
Modern Relevance
Changed Circumstances
How Madison's assumptions compare to today:
- Military Technology: Modern military far exceeds founding-era capabilities
- Standing Army: US maintains large professional military
- Arms Ownership: ~100 million gun owners, ~400 million guns
- Federal Power: Far exceeds Madison's expectations
- State Militias: National Guard under federal control
Enduring Principles
Despite changes, Madison's core insights remain debated:
- Armed citizens as check on government
- American exceptionalism in trusting citizens with arms
- Connection between arms and liberty
- State-federal balance of power
Contemporary Debates
Gun Rights Perspective
Madison clearly expected widespread individual arms ownership as essential to preventing tyranny.
Gun Control Perspective
Madison's calculations assumed militia service and state control, not unrestricted individual rights.
How to Cite This Document
Primary Source: Madison, James. "The Federalist No. 46." The New York Packet, January 29, 1788.
Modern Edition: The Federalist Papers, No. 46 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).
This Page: SecondAmendment.net. (2024). Federalist No. 46 - Madison on Armed Citizens. Retrieved from https://secondamendment.net/primary-sources/federalist-46/