The Federalist papers

by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay

English language

Published Sept. 21, 2012

ISBN:: 978-0-14-312197-8

(11 reviews)

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. The collection was commonly known as The Federalist until the name The Federalist Papers emerged in the 20th century. The first 77 of these essays were published serially in the Independent Journal, the New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser between October 1787 and April 1788. A compilation of these 77 essays and eight others were published in two volumes as The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787 by publishing firm J. & A. McLean in March and May 1788. The last eight papers (Nos. 78–85) were republished in the New York newspapers between June 14 and August 16, 1788. …

The authors of The Federalist intended to influence the voters to ratify the Constitution. In Federalist No. 1, they explicitly set that debate in broad political terms: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. In Federalist No. 10, Madison discusses the means of preventing rule by majority faction and advocates a large, commercial republic. This is complemented by Federalist No. 14, in which Madison takes the measure of the United States, declares it appropriate for an extended republic, and concludes with a memorable defense of the constitutional and political creativity of the Federal Convention. In Federalist No. 84, Hamilton makes the case that there is no need to amend the Constitution by adding a Bill of Rights, insisting that the various provisions in the proposed Constitution protecting liberty amount to a "bill of rights". Federalist No. 78, also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts. Federalist No. 70 presents Hamilton's case for a one-man chief executive. In Federalist No. 39, Madison presents the clearest exposition of what has come to be called "Federalism". In Federalist No. 51, Madison distills arguments for checks and balances in an essay often quoted for its justification of government as "the greatest of all reflections on human nature." According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up The Federalist Papers are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."On June 21, 1788, the proposed Constitution was ratified by the minimum of nine states required under Article VII. Towards the end of July 1788, with eleven states having ratified the new Constitution, the process of organizing the new government began.

3 editions

protomattr reviewed The Federalist Papers by James Madison

Review of 'The Federalist Papers' on 'Goodreads'

4 stars

This remarkable book is a treasure trove of commentary on the US Constitution, and as such is an indispensable resource in understanding it. Launched during a precarious time in our nation’s history, when it could have taken other trajectories, the Federalist was a project of Alexander Hamilton, who along with James Madison and John Jay wrote eighty-five articles under the pseudonym Publius, with the aim of convincing the people to ratify the Constitution.

Hamilton wrote the bulk of the articles. I found his writing to be the most challenging, especially when discussing the esoteric matters. Overall I think I liked Madison’s writing the best. In any case, just about every particular of the Constitution is discussed, giving the reasoning behind each detail (such as the various term lengths, making the Senate the court for impeachment, etc.).

It’s interesting to note the comparisons and contrasts with modern day:

1. The Federalist articles were published in newspapers, consisting of not a small number of words, and delving deep into advanced political topics. Considerable attention was expected. Contrast this with the attention-deficit and base nature of today’s Twitter discourse.

2. The naïveté of Publius when assuming the independence of politicians from faction is striking. Or maybe it’s modern cynicism that’s at fault.

3. The reverence for the Bill of Rights was nowhere near universal. I remember from social studies this being a token of compromise. Hamilton had this to say (among other things):

“‘WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.’ Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.”

And:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”

I wonder if he might be correct.

Hamilton concludes with anxious words, which somehow resonate today:

“A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle. The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of the thirteen States, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.”

I recommend this book to all Americans. My copy, published by Mentor in 1961, includes the Constitution with cross-references into the Federalist articles.