The Federalist

By Jacob E. Cooke

This edition from a noted historian “is the first definitive, variorum edition of the text of this much reprinted classic” (The William and Mary Quarterly).
 
The definitive edition of the historic essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, fully annotated and reproduced from the original text.  Also included are a new introduction by historian Jacob C. Cooke, along with notes, a glossary, as well as the complete Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, and U.S. constitution. 
 
“A high-quality, scholarly edition.” –Library Journal
 
“Everyone who is interested in either the principles or the practice of government―in the age of the Fathers or in our own era of perplexity―should read it.” ―Dumas Malone, History Book Club Review

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Jul 1, 1982
• ISBN: 9780819570956

Book preview

Preface

THE UNITED STATES has produced three historic documents of major importance: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Federalist. The Declaration of Independence has been printed at least twice with every minor insert and deletion; editions of the Constitution as well as commentaries on it resemble Biblical exegesis. Yet an accurate and definitive edition of The Federalist, the most significant contribution Americans have made to political philosophy, has never been published.

This failure is chiefly due to the publication of three authorized versions of these essays: the first edition, published in 1788 and corrected by Hamilton; the Hopkins edition of 1802, authorized by Hamilton; and the Gideon edition of 1819, James Madison’s version. Twentieth-century editions of The Federalist have been taken from one or another of these contemporary editions without regard to which one of them presents the most accurate text. The collation of the several versions of the essays to provide a text as close as possible to the originals which came from the pens of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay is described in the introduction to this volume.

As surprising as the lack of an accurate text of The Federalist is the failure of any editor to publish a satisfactorily annotated edition of it. In writing these essays, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay referred to many eighteenth-century political works with which their readers were familiar but which, a century and a half later, are known to few readers. Such works have been identified in this volume. Whenever references are made to contemporary events which might not be understood by most readers of the present day, they have been explained. Cross references, finally, have been given whenever an author refers to a preceding or succeeding discussion of a similar subject.

In the preparation of this volume I received the help of many people. To all those who assisted in the collation of the several texts of The Federalist I am grateful. I wish also to acknowledge the generous cooperation of Alice H. Bonnell, Kenneth A. Lohf, and John N. Waddell of the Columbia University Libraries. Their expert help made it considerably easier for me to find the eighteenth-century editions of works referred to by Publius. I am especially obligated to Harold C. Syrett. He suggested that I publish this edition of The Federalist, willingly complied with my frequent requests for advice, and gave much time to a searching criticism of the introduction. For permission to publish the essays by Hamilton which I first edited for The Papers of Alexander Hamilton and which will be printed in that work, I wish to thank the Columbia University Press. A grant from the Council for Research in the Social Sciences made possible the typing of the manuscript.

Whatever merit this edition of The Federalist has is due in large part to the painstaking work of Jean Gordon Cooke. Did she not reject the claim, she would be named co-editor of this volume.

JACOB E. COOKE

New York, January, 1961

Introduction

THE FEDERALIST, addressed to the People of the State of New York, was occasioned by the objections of many New Yorkers to the Constitution which had been proposed on September 17, 1787, by the Philadelphia Convention. During the last week in September and the first weeks of October, 1787, the pages of New York newspapers were filled with articles¹ denouncing the new frame of government. There were also defenders of it, but their articles² were characterized by somewhat indignant attacks on those who dared oppose the Constitution rather than by reasoned explanations of the advantages of its provisions.

The decision to publish a series of essays defending the proposed Constitution and explaining in detail its provisions was made by Alexander Hamilton. Both the reasons for his decision and the date on which he conceived the project are only conjecturable. Having gone to Albany early in October to attend the fall session of the Supreme Court, he was not in New York City during the early weeks of the controversy over the new Constitution.³ He must, nevertheless, have concluded that if it were to be adopted, convincing proof of its merits would have to be placed before the citizens of New York. His decision to write the essays may have been made before he left Albany, for according to tradition he wrote the first number of The Federalist in the cabin of his sloop on the return trip to New York.⁴

At some time before the appearance of the first essay, written under the pseudonym Publius, Hamilton sought and found collaborators in the preparation of the proposed defense of the Constitution, for the first essay, published in The Independent Journal on October 27, 1787, was followed in four days by an essay by John Jay. Neither Hamilton nor Jay left any record of whatever plans they may have made, but the third collaborator, James Madison, later recorded that the undertaking was proposed by Alexander Hamilton to James Madison with a request to join him and Mr. Jay in carrying it into effect. William Duer was also included in the original plan; and wrote two or more papers, which though intelligent and sprightly, were not continued, nor did they make a part of the printed collection.⁵ Hamilton also solicited the aid of Gouverneur Morris, who, writing in 1815, remembered that he was warmly pressed by Hamilton to assist in writing the Federalist.⁶

Despite emphatic statements to the contrary, it is unlikely that the three authors initially outlined any division of the work to be done; they did not themselves know how many essays would be written nor how extensive would be the treatment of the various subjects they proposed to discuss. One can only reconstruct the original plan by assuming that each wrote what it initially was planned that he should write; for such an assumption no evidence, either written or oral, exists. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were in New York City from October, 1787, to March, 1788, and the essays to be written by each may have been arranged in occasional consultations.

In this reprinting of the text of The Federalist, the original manuscripts have been approximated as nearly as possible. As the first printing of each essay, despite typographical errors, presumably was closest to the original, the text here published is that which first was printed. The texts of Essays 1–77 thus are taken from the newspapers in which they first appeared; the texts of 78–85 are taken from the edition of The Federalist edited by John and Archibald McLean,⁷ in which they first were printed. Drafts of Essays 3, 5, and 64 exist, but the hundreds of changes which Jay made in them make their publication impracticable.⁸

Contrary to the statement often made, the Federalist essays did not consistently first appear in any one newspaper; they rather were first printed in one, then in another paper.⁹ With the exception of the last eight numbers, all of them made their first appearance in newspapers of New York City. The first essay was published, as was said, on October 27, 1787, in The Independent Journal, or The General Advertiser, edited by John McLean and Co. Subsequent essays appeared in The Independent Journal and three other New York newspapers — The New-York Packet, edited by Samuel and John Loudon; The Daily Advertiser, edited by Francis Childs; and The New-York Journal and Daily Patriotic Register, edited by Thomas Greenleaf.¹⁰

The first seven essays, published between October 27 and November 17, 1787, appeared on Saturdays and Wednesdays in The Independent Journal, a semi-weekly paper, and a day or two later in both The New-York Packet and The Daily Advertiser. At the conclusion of Essay 7 there appeared in The Independent Journal the following announcement: In order that the whole subject of these Papers may be as soon as possible laid before the Public, it is proposed to publish them four times a week, on Tuesday in the New-York Packet and on Thursday in the Daily Advertiser. The intention thus was to publish on Tuesday in The New-York Packet, on Wednesday in The Independent Journal, on Thursday in The Daily Advertiser, and on Saturday in The Independent Journal.

The announced plan was not consistently followed. On Thursday, November 22, The Daily Advertiser, according to the proposed schedule, published Essay 10, but after the publication of that essay no other appeared first in its pages. To continue the proposed plan of publication — a plan which occasionally was altered by publishing three instead of four essays a week — the third Publius essay of the next week appeared on Friday in The New-York Packet. After November 30, the essays appeared in the following manner: Tuesday, The New-York Packet, Wednesday, The Independent Journal, Friday, The New-York Packet, and Saturday, The Independent Journal. The third essay of the week appeared either on Friday in the Packet or on Saturday in The Independent Journal. This pattern of publication was followed through the publication of Essay 76 (in the numbering we have followed, 77) on April 2, 1788. The remaining essays were first printed in the second volume of McLean’s edition¹¹ of May 28, 1788, and beginning on June 14 were reprinted, at intervals of several days, first in The Independent Journal and then in The New-York Packet.

Merely to reprint The Federalist as it first appeared is to present the version closest to the original manuscripts but not a definitive text. A definitive text must indicate the revisions made by the authors in later editions. The first edition,¹² printed by J. and A. McLean and corrected by Hamilton, is the source from which most editions of The Federalist have been taken. On January 1, 1788, McLean, having observed the avidity with which the Publius essays had been sought after by politicians and persons of every description, announced plans for the publication of "The FEDERALIST, A Collection of Essays, written in favour of the New Constitution, By a Citizen of New-York, Corrected by the Author, with Additions and Alterations.¹³ The promised volume, including the first thirty-six essays, was published on March 22, 1788. The work was not free of literary blemishes, Hamilton stated in the preface,¹⁴ for it contained violations of method and repetitions of ideas which cannot but displease a critical reader. Despite such imperfections, Hamilton hoped that the essays would promote the cause of truth, and lead to a right judgment of the true interests of the community." Interested readers were promised a second volume of essays as soon as the editor could prepare them for publication.

This Day is published, The Independent Journal advertised on May 28, 1788, The FEDERALIST, VOLUME SECOND. This volume contained the remaining essays, including the final eight which had not yet appeared in the newspapers. As in Volume I, there were editorial revisions, probably made by Hamilton. The final eight essays, which first appeared in this volume, were reprinted in The Independent Journal and in The New-York Packet between June 14 and August 16, 1788.

In addition to the McLean edition there were during Hamilton’s lifetime two French editions¹⁵ and two further American editions of The Federalist. The second American edition, published by John Tiebout in 1799, was not a new printing but the issuance of the remaining copies of the McLean edition with new title pages. The third American edition, published in 1802, not only was a new printing but contained revisions, presumably approved by Hamilton. It is this, the Hopkins edition,¹⁶ which must be taken as Hamilton’s final version of the Federalist papers.

George F. Hopkins announced his plan for a new edition of The Federalist in the January 13, 1802, issue of the New-York Evening Post. Proposals, By G. F. Hopkins, 118 Pearl Street, read the advertisement in the Post, "For Publishing by Subscription, in Two handsome Octavo Volumes, THE FEDERALIST, ON THE CONSTITUTION, BY PUBLIUS Written in 1788. To WHICH IS ADDED, PACIFICUS, ON THE PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY. Written in 1793. The whole Revised and Corrected. With new passages and notes." Hopkins proposed not only to issue a revised text but to give the author of each essay; by naming Hamilton, Madison, and Jay as the authors of The Federalist, he publicly broke the poorly kept secrecy surrounding its authorship. Almost a year passed before Hopkins, on December 8, 1802, offered to the public in a dress which it is believed will meet with general approbation the promised new edition.

Although it is certain Hamilton did not himself revise the text published in the Hopkins edition, available evidence indicates that he approved the alterations which were made. In 1847 John Church Hamilton, then preparing an edition of The Federalist, wrote George F. Hopkins requesting information on the extent to which Hamilton had made or approved the revisions. Hopkins replied that the changes had been made by a respectable professional gentleman who, after completing his work, had put the volumes into the hands of your father, who examined the numerous corrections, most of which he sanctioned, and the work was put to press….¹⁷ The editor, unnamed by Hopkins, was identified by John Church Hamilton as John Wells, an eminent New York lawyer. The Hopkins edition, Hamilton’s son emphatically stated, was "revised and corrected by John Wells … and supervised by Hamilton." Henry B. Dawson, in his 1864 edition of The Federalist, contested John Church Hamilton’s conclusion and argued that the changes were made by William Coleman, editor of The New-York Evening Post, without Hamilton’s authorization or approval. Hopkins, Dawson stated, declared at two different times in later years — once to James A. Hamilton and once to John W. Francis — that Hamilton refused to have any changes made in the essays.¹⁸ Although it is impossible to resolve the contradictory statements on Hamilton’s participation in the revisions included in the 1802 edition of The Federalist, John Church Hamilton presents the more convincing evidence. He, after all, quoted a statement by Hopkins, while Dawson related only conversations.

The McLean and Hopkins editions thus constitute Hamilton’s revision of the text of The Federalist. He made some minor changes in essays written by John Jay and James Madison — changes which in the McLean edition they presumably authorized by allowing him to revise the work for publication in book form. Jay never revised the essays he wrote, and it was not until 1818 that Madison authorized the publication of an edition including his own correction of his essays. On January 19, 1818, Jacob Gideon, a printer of Washington, D.C., wrote Madison proposing a new edition of The Federalist and requesting that Madison send him a list of authors. Madison complied by sending a Copy of the 1st Edition of the ‘Federalist,’ with the names of the writers prefixed to their respective numbers and with corrections of the essays each had written.¹⁹ Early in August, 1818, Gideon published his proposed edition of The Federalist.²⁰ The publisher of this volume, he announced in his introduction, has been so fortunate as to procure from Mr. Madison the copy of the work which that gentleman had preserved for himself, with corrections of the papers, of which he is the author, in his own hand.²¹ The publication of the Federalist, therefore, may be considered, in this instance, as perfect; and it is confidently presented to the public as a standard edition.

It is, then, from the press of the day, the McLean edition of 1788, the Hopkins edition of 1802, and the Gideon edition of 1818 that a definitive text of The Federalist must be reconstructed. In this edition, as has been stated above, the texts of Essays 1–77 have been taken from the newspapers in which they first appeared; the texts of Essays 78–85 are from Volume II of the McLean edition. All changes which Hamilton and Madison made or approved in the texts of the essays they wrote have been indicated in notes. Thus in Essays 1–77 every alteration made in McLean and Gideon in Madison’s essays and all changes made in McLean and Hopkins in Hamilton’s essays are given. An exception, however, has been made for Essays 18, 19, 20, 50–52, 54–58, and 62–63, the authorship of which is disputed; in these essays all changes made in McLean, Hopkins, and Gideon are indicated. In Essays 78–85, all the changes which appeared in the Hopkins edition are noted. The edition in which a revision was made is indicated by a short title, either the word McLean, Hopkins, or Gideon. To this rule there are, however, three exceptions: 1. When an obvious typographical error appears in the text taken from the newspaper, it has been corrected without annotation. 2. When in McLean there is a correction of a printer’s error which if left unchanged would make the text meaningless or inaccurate, that correction has been incorporated in the text; the word or words in the newspaper for which changes have been substituted are indicated in subjoined notes. 3. Obvious printer’s errors in punctuation have been corrected – a period at the end of a question, for example, has been changed to a question mark. When a dash is used at the end of a sentence, a common eighteenth-century practice, a period has been substituted.

Because of changes made in the McLean edition, the numbering of certain essays presents an editorial problem. When McLean, with Hamilton’s assistance, published the first edition of The Federalist, it was decided that the essay published in the newspaper as 35 should follow Essay 28, presumably because the subject matter of 35 was a continuation of the subject treated in 28. It also was concluded, probably because of its unusual length, that the essay which appeared in the newspapers as number 31 should be divided and should be published as two essays. With these changes made, the original numbering of Essays 29–36 was changed in the following way:

Essays 36–78 in the McLean edition thus were one number higher than the number given the corresponding essay in the newspaper.

Because McLean thus changed the numbers of some of the essays, there has been confusion among later editors as to whether there were eighty-four or eighty-five essays. This is understandable, for there were only eighty-four essays printed in the newspapers, the essays numbered 32 and 33 by McLean having appeared in the press as a single essay. The last essay printed in The Independent Journal accordingly was numbered 84. The last eight essays published in The New-York Packet, on the other hand, were ascribed the numbers used in the second volume of McLean’s edition. The last number of The Federalist printed by The New-York Packet in April had been numbered 76; the following essay, published in June, was numbered 78. By omitting the number 77, the editor of The New-York Packet, like McLean, numbered the last of the essays 85.

Later editions of The Federalist, except for that published by Henry B. Dawson, have followed the numbering of the McLean edition. Since no possible purpose would be served and some confusion might result by restoring the newspaper numbering, the essays have here been given the numbers ascribed to them by McLean in 1788 and the newspaper number has been placed in brackets.²²

As almost a century and a half of controversy has centered on the authorship of certain numbers of The Federalist, one would be presumptuous to assume that he can settle it. The controversy is, perhaps, an example of the numerous historical problems not susceptible of settlement; one can only give its background, summarize the evidence which has been adduced to resolve it, and suggest tentative conclusions.

Like most other eighteenth-century newspaper contributors, the authors of The Federalist chose to write anonymously. At the time of their appearance in the press many New Yorkers probably suspected that Hamilton, if not the sole author of the Publius essays, was the major contributor. Friends of Hamilton and Madison, and perhaps those of Jay, certainly knew both that the authorship was joint and who the authors were.²³ The number of essays written by each author, if only because the question probably never arose, neither was known nor aroused curiosity. The Federalist, after all, was written for the immediate purpose of persuading the citizens of New York that it was to their interest to adopt the frame of government proposed by the Constitutional Convention; certainly not the authors, and probably few readers, realized that the essays which in the winter of 1788 appeared so frequently in the New York press over the signature of Publius would become the classic interpretation of the American Constitution.

During the decade and a half following their publication the question of authorship of the essays, despite the political developments which had made Hamilton and Madison political enemies, remained dormant. In 1802 George F. Hopkins’ proposal to publish a new edition of The Federalist in which the authors would be identified may have aroused but probably reflected an enhanced public interest. That his edition did not fulfill the promise, Hopkins later recalled, was due to Hamilton’s decided disapprobation.²⁴ It was not until three years after Hamilton’s death that The Port Folio, a Philadelphia newspaper, published a list of the authors of specific essays, thus opening a controversy which, even after a hundred and fifty years, remains unsettled.²⁵

The evidence on the authorship of several of the essays is contradictory because both Hamilton and Madison made, or allegedly made, several lists in which they claimed authorship of the same essays. It is neither necessary nor instructive to discuss the minor discrepancies found in the claims made by the two men in their respective lists.²⁶ The whole problem is simplified by keeping in mind that the authorship of only fifteen of the eighty-five essays is disputed. Despite contrary claims in several of the least-credible lists published during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, it has long been accepted that Hamilton wrote 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85; that Madison was the author of 10, 14, 37–48; and that John Jay contributed 2–5 and 64.²⁷ The authorship of only 18–20, 49–58, and 62–63 is therefore debatable.

That the number of disputed essays thus can be reduced is seen by examining the reliability of the several Madison and Hamilton lists. There are four reputed Madison lists: 1. An article, signed Corrector, which appeared in the National Intelligencer on March 30, 1817, and which according to the anonymous author was copied from a penciled memorandum in the hand of Madison. 2. A statement of authorship,²⁸ supposedly endorsed by Madison, made by Richard Rush,²⁹ a member of Madison’s cabinet, in his copy of The Federalist. 3. An article in the City of Washington Gazette, dated December 15, 1817, claiming to set forth a list furnished by Madison himself.³⁰ 4. The edition of The Federalist published by Jacob Gideon³¹ in 1818, which based its attribution of authorship on James Madison’s own copy of the work which that gentleman had preserved for himself. There is no evidence that Madison approved the first three of these lists, however truthful their authors; the fourth, the Gideon edition, was not only based on Madison’s copy but was endorsed by him as correct.

Hamilton’s claims to authorship are more complicated. Despite statements by his partisans, there are only three Hamilton lists that merit the serious attention of the historian who applies any known tests for evaluating historical evidence. They are the so-called Benson list, the list allegedly preserved by Hamilton in his own copy of The Federalist, and the Kent list.

The Benson list, according to a story first related by William Coleman in March, 1817, was left by Hamilton, shortly before his death, between the pages of a book in the library of his long-time friend Judge Egbert Benson. Arriving at Benson’s office, Hamilton was told by Robert Benson, Jr., Egbert’s nephew and clerk, that the Judge, accompanied by Rufus King, had gone to Massachusetts for a few days. As Hamilton conversed with the law clerk, he idly handled one of the volumes on the shelves in the office. After Hamilton’s death, two days later, Benson remembered the incident; and, looking in the book Hamilton had picked up, he found a scrap of paper, unsigned but in Hamilton’s hand, listing the essays he had written.³² Judge Benson, according to the traditional account, pasted it on the inside cover of his copy of The Federalist, but somewhat later, fearing that he might lose such a valuable document, he deposited this copy of The Federalist in the New York Society Library. The memorandum was presumably stolen in 1818.³³

The existence of the Benson list was corroborated by two witnesses, Robert Benson and William Coleman. Coleman, editor of the New-York Evening Post, is the less credible authority; he may have seen the Benson list, but it is significant that he never definitely stated that he did. The most emphatic statement he made, elicited by the demands for proof made by his antagonist in a newspaper controversy over the authorship of The Federalist, was as follows:

I, therefore, for the entire satisfaction of the public, now state, that the memorandum referred to is in General Hamilton’s own hand writing, was left by him with his friend judge BENSON, the week before his death, and was, by the latter, deposited in the city library, where it now is, and may be seen, pasted in one of the volumes of The Federalist.³⁴

The statement of Robert Benson, the law clerk to whom Hamilton spoke on the day before his encounter with Burr, is more convincing, but because it was made many years after the event and was sprinkled with conditional statements, it is not conclusive. I was then a student in the office, Benson recalled, and well known to the General, who called and enquired for Judge Benson.

I replied that he had left the city with Mr. King. The General in his usual manner then went to the book case and took down a book which he opened and soon replaced, and left the office. Some time after the General’s death, a memorandum in his handwriting was found in a volume of Pliny’s letters, I think, which, I believe, was the book he took down, and which memorandum was afterwards wafered by the Judge in the inside cover of the first volume of the Federalist, and where it remained for several years. He subsequently removed it, and, as I understood, gave it to some public library. The marks of the wafers still remain in the volume, and above them in Judge Benson’s handwriting is, what is presumed, and I believe to be, a copy of the General’s memorandum above referred to….³⁵

The Benson list is suspect, then, because the claim for its authenticity is based on the evidence of two men neither of whom stated that he actually saw it. If there had not already been too much speculation, despite the paucity of evidence, on what Hamilton really thought or intended, it would be interesting to explain why a man concerned about his claim to the authorship of a celebrated book should have left posterity to judge it by a scrap of paper surreptitiously placed between the pages of a volume in the law library of a friend. Perhaps he knew that Robert Benson would search all the volumes in his uncle’s office on the suspicion that Hamilton, however uncharacteristically, had concealed a note on some important subject; or perhaps he thought that Benson frequently read Pliny’s Letters and thus could be sure the note would be found. One can speculate endlessly on the motives for Hamilton’s behavior — in this instance, if one keeps in mind the fact that he usually was not backward in asserting his claims, aberrant behavior — but the significant fact is the inadequacy of the Benson list as valid historical evidence.

Evidence of the existence of Hamilton’s own copy of The Federalist in which he supposedly listed the essays he wrote comes from a notice which appeared on November 14, 1807, in The Port Folio. The Executors of the last will of General Hamilton, the Philadelphia paper announced, "have deposited in the Publick Library of New-York a copy of ‘The Federalist,’ which belonged to the General in his lifetime, in which he has designated in his own hand-writing, the parts of that celebrated work written by himself, as well as those contributed by Mr. JAY and Mr. MADISON." No one has seen Hamilton’s copy in the last hundred and fifty years; whether it existed or what happened to it, if it did exist, cannot now be known.³⁶

While the numbers claimed by Hamilton in the Benson list and in his own copy of The Federalist are the same, the list by Chancellor James Kent disagrees in several particulars from the other two. The Kent list, in the Chancellor’s own writing, was found on the inside cover of his copy of The Federalist, now deposited in the Columbia University Library. Because of differences in the ink and pen he used, Kent’s statement may be divided into three parts, each of which was written at a different time. In the following copy of Kent’s notes the three parts are indicated by Roman numerals:

  I.   I am assured that Numbers 2. 3. 4. 5. & 54 [the number 6 was later written over the number 5] were written by Jay Jay. Numbers 10. 14. 37 to 48 [the number 9 was later written over the number 8] both inclusive & 53 by James Madison Jun. Numbers 18. 19. 20. by Messrs Madison if Hamilton jointly — all the rest by Mr. Hamilton.

 II.    (Mr. Hamilton told me that Mr. Madison wrote No. 68 [the number 4 was later written over the number 6] & 69 [the number 4 was later written over the number 6] or from pa. 101 to 112 of Vol 2d)

III.   NB. I showed the above mem. to General Hamilton in my office in Albany & he said it was correct saving the correction above made — See Hall’s Law Journal Vol 6 p 461.

The numbers which, as indicated above, were written over the numbers Kent first wrote are not in Kent’s hand. However familiar one is with the handwriting of another, it is difficult to determine if a single numeral is in his hand. But despite the impossibility of positive identification, a close comparison of numerals made by Hamilton with the numerals which were added to the Kent list strongly indicates that the changes are in the hand of Hamilton. The Kent list thus becomes the only evidence in Hamilton’s writing which now exists.

Certain deductions reasonably can be made from the external evidence presented by Kent’s notes. The ink clearly reveals, as was said, that the three notes were made at different times. The information in the first part (I) of the notes was obtained from someone other than Hamilton, for otherwise Kent would not have written in the second part (II) that Mr. Hamilton told me. The information in the second part must have been given Kent in a conversation, for it is evident that Kent was not sure that he remembered what Hamilton said or that Hamilton accurately could remember, without reference to a copy of The Federalist, which essays he had written.

The third notation, both because it refers to Hamilton as general (a rank which he attained in 1798) and because the conversation alluded to took place in Albany, must have been made between 1800, the year in which Hamilton resumed his law practice after completing his duties as Inspector General of the Army, and his death in 1804. The third section of Kent’s memorandum also indicates that Hamilton read, probably corrected, and approved the Kent list. It constitutes, therefore, the most reliable evidence available on Hamilton’s claims of authorship.

How much reliance can be placed on the Kent list, however, is a decision which each reader must make himself. It is probable that Hamilton approved the list without referring to the essays themselves, a presumed fact which, when coupled with the known facts that the numbers of The Federalist had been changed and that the essays had been written at least twelve years previously, left a wide margin for error.

Kent himself, it should be noted, later doubted the accuracy of Hamilton’s memory, for on the page opposite the memorandum quoted above he pasted a copy of the article from the City of Washington Gazette which stated that Madison had written Numbers 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 37–58, 62–63, and that Jay was the author of Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 64. Underneath this clipping Kent wrote:

I have no doubt that Mr. Jay wrote No 64 on the Treaty Power — He made a speech on that subject in the NY Convention, & I am told he says he wrote it. I suspect therefore from internal Evidence the above to be the correct List & not the one on the opposite page.³⁷

The history of the several Hamilton lists has been examined in some detail to indicate how unsatisfactory they are. Judged by any canon usually employed to determine the reliability of historical evidence they are, save for the Kent list, of questionable value. Historians who have tried to prove that Hamilton wrote the disputed numbers of The Federalist have used the Benson list as proof; those who have defended Madison’s claim have attempted to explain why Hamilton may have made errors. Both have accepted, without question, the Benson list as Hamilton’s considered claim — and this despite its doubtful authenticity. Given the inconclusive proof of its validity, its use as Hamilton’s final statement on his authorship of The Federalist is at least suspect. If, as has been suggested, the Kent list is the most reliable statement of Hamilton’s claim, one must conclude that Hamilton, perhaps because he was uninterested, perhaps because he did not actually refer to an edition of The Federalist to check his memory, left no well-considered and definite statement.

Accepting the Kent list, however inconclusive, as the best evidence of Hamilton’s claim and the attribution in the Gideon edition as Madison’s considered claim, there is doubt only over the authorship of 18, 19, 20, 50, 51, 52, 54–58, and 62–63. About three of these, 18, 19, and 20, there should be no dispute, for there is a statement by James Madison which Hamilton’s claim does not really controvert. On the margin of his copy of The Federalist opposite number 18 Madison wrote:

The subject matter of this and the two following numbers happened to be taken up by both Mr. H and Mr. M. What had been prepared by Mr. H who had entered more briefly into the subject, was left with Mr. M on its appearing that the latter was engaged in it, with larger materials, and with a view to a more precise delineation; and from the pen of the latter, the several papers went to the Press.

The problem of determining the authorship of these three essays is merely one of deciding on the comparative contributions of the two men. Although there are several sentences which are very similar to remarks Hamilton recorded in the outline for his speech of June 18, 1787, on the proposed Constitution, most of the material was undoubtedly supplied by Madison, who, without doubt, actually wrote them. Essay 20, for example, is virtually a copy of notes which Madison had taken in preparation for his attendance at the Constitutional Convention.³⁸ Because Hamilton, however slightly, did contribute to these essays, and because the precise extent of his collaboration cannot be known, they have been attributed to Madison, with the assistance of Hamilton.

The authorship of 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, and 63 is more difficult to determine, but the presumption, for reasons already stated, must be in favor of Madison’s claim.³⁹

If the external evidence, consisting of the lists either made or inspired by Hamilton and Madison, cannot lead to a definite solution of the authorship of these disputed numbers of The Federalist, can one rely on internal evidence — the subject matter of the essays, the examples drawn from history, the stylistic peculiarities — to resolve the problem of authorship?

The ablest studies⁴⁰ of the clues offered by internal evidence to the authorship of The Federalist have been made by Edward G. Bourne and John Church Hamilton.⁴¹ Bourne attributes all of the disputed essays to Madison; Hamilton asserts that they were written by his father. Both Bourne and Hamilton attempt to prove their respective cases by printing excerpts from the disputed essays alongside similar, and sometimes identical, passages from other writings by each man. Bourne presents very convincing evidence for Madison’s authorship of numbers 49, 51, 53, 62, and 63, and a fair case for his having written numbers 50 and 52; his case for 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58 is particularly weak, as he offers no evidence from Madison’s other writings and relies on the argument that, as essays 48–58 are a group, the author who wrote the earlier must also have written the later ones in the group. John Church Hamilton, on the other hand, produces some evidence that Hamilton wrote 55–58, and puts forth contrived and unconvincing arguments in support of his authorship of the remaining disputed essays. The significant point, however, is that each was able to find evidence proving that his candidate really wrote all the disputed essays. The contradictory conclusions of these two men — one of whom studied intensively the previous writings of Madison and the other whose lifelong study of his father gave him a knowledge of Hamilton’s writings which never has been excelled — point up the difficulties of deciding the dispute on the basis of internal evidence.

The unreliability of internal evidence as a solution to the problem of authorship is, of course, attributable not only to the fact that both Hamilton and Madison defended the Constitution with similar arguments and that, in 1788 at least, they held similar ideas on its necessity and advantages, but to their remarkably similar prose styles. This was no unique phenomenon, for most educated Americans of the late eighteenth century — a few particularly gifted writers, like Jefferson, perhaps excepted — employed the same stylistic devices, the same standard phrases, and remarkably similar sentence structure. To attempt to find in any of the disputed essays words which either man used and which the other never employed is futile, if only because the enormous amount which each wrote allows the assiduous searcher to discover almost any word in the earlier or subsequent writings of both.⁴²

Neither is the search for parallel statements in the disputed essays and earlier writings of the two men rewarding. Madison doubtless did not agree with the ideas expressed in Hamilton’s famous speech of June 18, 1787, before the Constitutional Convention, in which, outlining his conception of the ideal government America should have, Hamilton advocated a government closely modeled on the English. Nevertheless, before 1787 Madison and Hamilton agreed on the weaknesses of the Confederation and the necessity of a stronger central government to replace it.⁴³ The similarity of their thinking is particularly apparent to one who closely examines their collaboration when they were both members of the Continental Congress in 1783. Their later political differences, the different ideas which they later may have endorsed, prove little about what they wrote in 1787–1788.

If one were to rely on internal evidence, it thus would be impossible to assign all the disputed essays to either Hamilton or Madison. While such evidence indicates that Madison surely wrote numbers 49–54 and probably 62–63, it also suggests that Hamilton wrote 55–58. The internal evidence which has been adduced to prove the authorship either of Hamilton or of Madison is here summarized in the first note to each disputed essay.

Our attribution of the essays is based, however, not on the confusing and often contradictory evidence which that type of proof offers but on the more reliable evidence of the claims made by the disputants themselves. Madison’s claim, as has been said, was both maturely considered and emphatically stated; Hamilton’s claim, on the other hand, probably was made without reference to the essays and revealed a lack of interest in the question of authorship. Although these facts do not conclusively controvert Hamilton’s authorship, they clearly suggest the superiority of James Madison’s claim to the authorship of the disputed essays. This conclusion has been indicated in this edition of The Federalist by placing Hamilton’s name in brackets under Madison’s at the top of each disputed essay. To assert the superiority of Madison’s claim, it should be emphasized, is not to challenge Hamilton’s integrity. As Edward G. Bourne has said, it is a question not of veracity but of memory.

THE FEDERALIST

The Federalist No. 1

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

October 27, 1787

To the People of the State of New York.

AFTER an unequivocal¹ experience of the inefficacy² of the subsisting³ Fœderal Government, you are called upon⁴ to deliberate on⁵ 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,⁶ by their conduct and example, to decide⁷ 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 æra in which⁸ 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 add⁹ the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism to heighten¹⁰ the solicitude, which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed¹¹ by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiassed by considerations not connected with the public good.¹² But this is a thing more ardently to be wished,¹³ 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 foreign¹⁴ to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favourable to the discovery of truth.

From The Independent Journal, October 27, 1787. This essay appeared on October 30 in both The New-York Packet and The Daily Advertiser. (Editor)

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 well¹⁵ aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men¹⁶ (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views:¹⁷ 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,¹⁸ or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable, the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived 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, would¹⁹ furnish a lesson of moderation to those, who are ever so much²⁰ persuaded of their being in the right, in any controversy.²¹ 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 influenced²² 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 upon 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,²³ 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 the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized, as the off-spring of a temper fond of despotic²⁴ 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 bait²⁵ 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 forbidding 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 carreer, by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing Demagogues and ending Tyrants.

In the course of the preceeding observations I have had an eye, my Fellow Citizens, to putting²⁶ you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever 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 effect 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 your²⁷ 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.²⁸ 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 will²⁹ therefore be of use to begin by examining³⁰ 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.³¹

PUBLIUS.

* The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the New Constitution. (Publius)

The Federalist No. 2

JOHN JAY

October 31, 1787

To the People of the State of New York.

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important, that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of Government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America, that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one fœderal Government, than¹ that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each, the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national Government.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion, that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest Citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But Politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements, which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these Gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound Policy.

From The Independent Journal, October 31, 1787. This essay appeared on November 1 in The Daily Advertiser and on November 2 in The New-York Packet.

It has often given me pleasure to observe, that Independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide spreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accomodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people — each individual citizen every where enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war — as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies — as a nation we have formed alliances and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign States.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of Union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a Fœderal Government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay at a time, when their habitations were in flames, when many of their Citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature enquiries and reflections, which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at that a Government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union, than enamoured of liberty, they observed the danger, which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being persuaded that ample security for both, could only be found in a national Government more wisely framed, they, as with one voice, convened the late Convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

This Convention, composed of men, who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool uninterrupted and daily consultations: and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their Country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous counsels.

Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered, that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration, which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand,² and which it certainly ought to receive. But this, (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this Paper,)³ is more to be wished than expected that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten, that well grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the Memorable Congress of 1774.⁴ That Body recommended certain measures to their Constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the Press began to teem with Pamphlets and weekly Papers against those very measures. Not only many of the Officers of Government who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or⁵ the undue influence of former⁶ attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their endeavours to persuade the people to reject the advice of that Patriotic Congress. Many indeed were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That in the course of the time they passed together in enquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination, than their duty, to recommend only such measures, as after the most mature deliberation they really thought prudent and adviseable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavours used to deter and disuade them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had then been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the Convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this Convention and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late Convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate

Reviews for The Federalist

[06nwingert · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

America is a unique country, founded on individual liberty. The Federalist Papers are a conglomeration of newspaper editorials written by three of our founding fathers- Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison— explaining the constitution to lay people. Hamilton wrote a majority of the articles, mostly deconstructing arguments against the constitution. These articles illustrate liberty, from the ancient Greeks to Great Britain. The w the positives from each prior democracy and explain how America will overcome weaknesses.

[antao-3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I'm reading an earlier vital text on American democracy "The Federalist Papers" at a relaxed pace and I find I am drawn again and again to the ideals of the early US founders and this preposterous joke of a President supported by the Trumptards, breaking all the protocols. It’s quite a sad read, all these impassioned arguments and the basis for checks and balances in the face of a system that has been 25% violated by Donnie The Chump and his Republican enablers. Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” makes much of the wisdom and social equality of the Pilgrims and of the vast uncultivated wilderness being the founding conditions for the democratic success of the US (incidentally, I'm not quite satisfied with Tocqueville's distinction between the uncultivated northern part of the continent and the cultivated southern part upon the arrival of Europeans as an explanation for the different courses of freedom and tyranny in the two hemispheres; it's one of the rare cases where he doesn't really buttress an assertion.) Would you agree that these founding conditions nurtured certain expansive traits in the American character which fed democracy for 200 years but are now depleting it?Tocqueville cites “The Federalist Papers” extensively in “Democracy in America”. The rationality and foresight that exudes from the quotes is deeply refreshing. In my analysis of what Tocqueville says about the laws of the US, I can't see that Trump has been able to exploit any weakness. The federal constitution, with its amendments, seems to be doing its job admirably well. Arguably the 2/3 majority requirement in the Senate for impeachment might be seen as an error, but that provision was presumably intended (perhaps others can confirm this?) as a bulwark against populist sways of opinion. As ever, the Founding Fathers could provide against many contingencies, but not against the Senate being filled with fruitcakes who can't tell a conspiracy from a fact, or a principle from a bucket of pigswill.The reality, it seems to me, is almost diametrically opposite to this: the Constitutional balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government, balanced in the course of each checking power accumulators in the other two, and each two, in the other one, depends absolutely on actual people doing the checking-and-balancing.McConnell and Barr (and Roberts), for example, would have to provide checks against Trump cronies ignoring lawful subpoenas. (I use their names both literally and representatively (of their party, the Republicans).)I'm not saying that Kremlin Don is exploiting the natural "weakness" of laws, a nation of laws, ultimately depending on people to attach those laws to real circumstances, real behavior. (He couldn't exploit three four-of-a-kinds in a row at a poker table; his living as though he were a 'winner' has nothing to do with even talents for public relations or crime, and everything to do with appearing at the right time to appeal to a catastrophically susceptible not-minority-enough — and, of course, to having had a successfully crooked father go senile and to having pretended to operate a laughably transparent money Laundromat for Russian gangsters.)The weakness, in my view, is ineradicable among human societies and cultures: no political-economic, legal, and social geodesic has such great "tensegrity" as to survive corruption in—especially—it’s most load-bearing human components. (At the moment, the best illustration of that is McConnell—but there are many other instances.)I don't think Trump has the skilz or, in fact, the spine, to take over; to me, a greater worry is someone capable of spotting a ruling vacuum and getting, eventually, a REAL majority behind him.

[nittnut · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Essential reading.

[justagirlwithabook · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I have a large collection of historical books that are considered either 'classics' or are just informational texts to inform us more of history (or to provide context, etc. etc). This is just one of those! Plus it's Alexander Hamilton and he doesn't really need a review.

[bness2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It was most enlightening to read some of the Right's favorite quotes in context.

[fredjryder1946 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Okay. Here's what it is! Step ONE: Read the book.Step TWO: Just for kicks, turn on the boob tube and watch Hannity & Colmes, or any live session of the Senate or the House. And maybe a presidential debate or two.Step THREE: Ask the Almighty: "What the hell happened to this country??????"

[aleph123_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

interesting introductory historical essay, while obviously the Federalist Papers are available on archive.orgstill worth reading (I read excerpts of the Federalist Papers first in the early 1980s, but in Italian)

[jvioland_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Every American citizen should read this seminal work. We have come so far from knowing why are government was created in the way it was. A brilliant justification by brilliant men.

[audacity88_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

We Americans know how important our Founding Fathers were, but sometimes we forget how smart they were. The polemics in this book manifest authorship by towering intelligences, and provoke us to ask whether we have stayed true to their vision for this country.

[tjsjohanna_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

As a thorough explanation of how these three men understood the US Constitution to work, this work is indispensable. The reader also gets a good understanding of the basic principles of republican government - its ideals, its limits, its checks and balances. Some of the issues raised seem particularly timely (which just goes to show that the more things change the more they stay the same).

[lisamaria_c · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This subtitle to my edition is "The Famous Papers on the Principles of American Government." It's an apt description, but perhaps doesn't go far enough. Try foundational. They consist of 85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, who became our first Secretary of the Treasury, James Madison, who largely framed the United States Constitution, and John Jay, who became our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The essays were written to urge people to ratify the constitution, and have been used every since to illuminate it by everyone from judges to--well, political science professors, and this was one of my texts in my college course introducing political science. It may be this edition regularized grammar and spelling, but one thing that hit me is how readable it all is. It was meant to explain the constitution to ordinary voters, so perhaps that shouldn't be so surprising. If I could get Americans to read one book, this would be my choice. Whether they agree with the principles of the Founders who created this country or not, at least by the end of it they'd understand what--and what they were not--about, and not just who the pundits and politicians claim for them. But if I couldn't get them to read the whole thing, I'd at least urge on them "Federalist No. 10" by James Madison. Our professor taught us that particular essay was at the heart of the philosophy of American Government and the design of the constitution:Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment, without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourish faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.It is to control faction (think political parties) and the strife that tore previous democracies to pieces, without sacrificing liberty that the separation of powers and system of checks and balances was written into the constitution. As that particular essay elegantly explains. If the Constitution is our text book, the Federalist Papers is the Constitution 101 for Dummies, the owners' manual.

[hadriantheblind · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Shameful that I hadn't marked this as read yet. Attached are some thoughts copied from my notes, some of which are not entirely relevant, but still.

Post-Revolution, the colonies experimented with Articles of Confederation. Flawed, replaced by modern Constitution.

History of Republics as derived from ancient Greece, then Rome -> England. Rome became Tyranny, although Republic was lauded as mixed government between Aristocracy, Monarchy, and Democracy. Same with England after the Glorious Revolution.

US was not only republic - Venice as a mercantile aristocratic Republic. Dutch as ad hoc mercantile republic w/ Stadholder. Switzerland as federal canton system. US as special because it was a mixed government, but w/o monarchy, was large, expanding and heterogeneous. All others were small and isolated, as Montesquieu had stated would be necessary for a republic's survival. US definitely became a republic, although not quite a total democracy in modern sense, as women did not become franchised until 1900s, POCs in 1960s. Capitalist social strata - nation ruled by lawyers.

Hamilton, Madison and Jay use some of the former as historical examples. Federal union as preventing interstate anarchy, as these states and colonies would have dubious chances of surviving on their won. Done so through mutual restraint, separation of powers, executive command of military, first seen through Strategos of ancient Athens. No state had hegemony over others, even the bigger ones such as New York or Virginia, hence federal union of states made more appealing.

Federal government superseding and managing states would also be most efficient at economic governance, and managing the military against outside factors - Spanish, British, etc. Powers of taxation. Fear of despotism, individualist tendencies, self-rule.

Idea of popular sovereignty, derived from people, versus Westphalian sovereignty of authority and power alone. Engaged democracy, derived from Rousseau.

Constitutional crises led to one of main factors leading to civil war - sectionalism - the rights of states to continue slavery, South feeling threatened due to sudden expansion to the west of free states. #10 as major paper against worries of 'factionalism and insurrection'. History between founding of Philadelphian system to Civil War marred by controversy and three Great Compromises over slavery. Hence one of the great flaws of the system between state and federal rule, and over the great crime of slavery. Calhoun, Disquisition, pro-slavery, nullification. Webster, majority rule. But little exposition seen of Hamilton's old position by the 1850s.

Civil War ending the constitutional crisis. Federal union finally dominant. Most productive Congress in years now that the South is gone.

And so forth. These papers are old, but far from irrelevant.

[jwhenderson_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The arguments of Hamilton, Madison and Jay are just as relevant today as they were more than two hundred years ago. The authors of The Federalist Papers wanted to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. However, the authors of the Federalist papers also had a greater plan in mind. According to Federalist 1:"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."They present positive arguments for the ratification of the Constitution and, as Madison says in Paper No. 37, "They solicit the attention of those only who add to a sincere zeal for the happiness of their country,". What a thought and temperament, that zeal for happiness. One thing that impressed me on reading the papers was the classical education demonstrated by the authors with their articles filled with references to Cicero, Rome and Greece. Enlightenment thinkers were also evident with Montesquieu being a notable example. Certainly this is a book worth rereading with the current importance of the constitution in our political life.

[randystafford · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

My reactions to reading this in 1992.What can you say about a classic of political thought -- a dense work that took a long time to read? I’ll record a few surface impressions. Madison has a more reasonable tone than the sometimes sarcastic Hamilton. Though he never names names, you can see why his personal invectives led to his death in the duel with Aaron Burr. I found the methods of argument interesting. The authors, especially Hamilton, argue the initial assumptions of their opponents then go on to show how their arguments are without merit even if certain of their assumptions are accepted. Constantly, they emphasize that this is not a perfect government and that we should neither assume people are totally evil or totally trustworthy. Yet, in their proposal for a Republican government, they wisely choose to link a man’s ambition to his constituents’ welfare (and carefully arrange each type of government official to have their own power base) and have the Supreme Court and Senate reign in the wilder passions of the people. I found it revealing that they expected the legislative branch to become dominant (and it has) and seemed, to my pretty ignorant eyes, to forsee the role the Supreme Court assumed after Maybury vs Madison (Justice Marshal was tutored in political philosophy by Madison). The new republic seemed to think excise taxes, duties, and property taxes would be the main supports. Hamilton comes off as a vigorous supporter of a strong central government -- vigorous enough to motivate some fortunately not heeded arguments against the proposed Bill of Rights. Hamilton seems particulary incensed that opponents of the Constitution would claim the right to trial by jury is eliminated. A great deal of space is taken by his rebuttal. Madison’s early papers shows his historical knowledge and the inspirations for different features of the Constitution. I found the argument that command of the armed forces should be vested nationally because people wouldn’t trust it interesting. One can see the whole matter of loyalty to state throughout the work, a loyalty the authors saw as a check on national despotism.

[devil_llama · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

One of the most classic documents of American history, this work is a series of essays by the writers of the Constitution, which were written to explain the new Constitution and to agitate on behalf of ratification. The prose soars in most places, and it reminds a person of what it would have been possible for America to become if we'd treated our new constitution as a living document, but recognized the importance of the clauses that safeguard us from imperial presidents and monarchs.

[janeaustennut · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Excellent; A must read and reference for any citizen of the United States! Should be required reading in all American High Schools! If one is a citizen and participates in the voting process, they must be familiar with The Federalist Papers and the Constitution.

[shawncorps · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

An essential classic of American constitutional scholarship.

[antiquary_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I rated it 5 not just because it is a classic, but because it really is that good-- and much less naive than some commentators make out. For example, it clearly does expect that the US will have fiercely partisan politics.

[jpsnow · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

All thoughtful citizens should read this classic. Does anything need to be said about its importance? A few new impressions of mine: difficult reading due to the elevated style of the authors of that time, bordering on embarrassing for our present day situation. About 1/3 through the 85 papers, I thought I could begin to determine which "Publius" was the writer, Hamilton being more foreceful in argument and direct in course. The authors predicted some of the problems we have today and the evolution of the Constitution, especially with regard to the variety and continual change of factions (and corresponding need for the country to be flexible. Our government was similar to many others being developed at that time (including the 13 state governments), all based on the recent writings of political philosophers such as Montesque. I think the 3 authors would be most surprised today at the gargantuan size of the federal government. While they admitted of the potential growth, they also believed it would be in relation to the growth of the population. A typical sentence "Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however, inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruption from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction." In #31, Hamilton illustrates his consistency by comparing axioms of good government to the axioms of geometry, the former being that: "there cannot be an effect without a cause, that the means ought to be proportioned to the end, that every power ought to be commensurate with its object, that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation." In reading the Constitution itself, I note that the more recent amendments are significantly longer than the original ten and even longer than most of the original articles.

[angelic55blonde · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is a great addition to any library, and a must read/own for anyone who calls themselves an American historian/buff.

[kade_11 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

One thing about this version that is superior to others is the table of contents with summaries of the contents of each Federalist article. All the other Federalist Papers compilations I've read lacked an effective table of contents which told you which article covered which subject.

[cajun_huguenot · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A MUST read for every American who wants to understand our Constitution.

[beau0p0laurence · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

this is the written dialogue between and among our Founding Fathers as they debated -- in public -- how the U.S. of A. would work, legally speaking. news flash -- most of the "constitutional issues" in 2006 were discussed in the late 1700s by Jefferson, Adams, et al. if you agree (or disagree) with today's pundits, read this book and be able to articulate why your opinion makes sense.

[ulfhjorr · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The great letters of Publius are an essential collection for anyone wishing to understand the Constitutional views of elite federalists in the late eighteenth century. This edition adds an enlightening and interesting introductory essay by Benjamin Wright that only adds to the value of the text.