The Federalist Papers

by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay

Hailed by Thomas Jefferson as “the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written", The Federalist Papers is a collection of eighty-five essays published by Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay from 1787 to 1788, as a means to persuade the public to ratify the Constitution of the United States.

With nearly two-thirds of the essays written by Hamilton, this enduring classic is perfect for modern audiences passionate about his work or seeking a deeper understanding of one of the most important documents in US history.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Classics, Philosophy, American History, Law

688 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1788

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him.

One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.

During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax.

A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto.

Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death.

After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.

Reviews

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read the Federalist Papers. Then, just for kicks, switch on Hannity & Colmes, or Crossfire, or read USA Today... and then ask yourself, WHAT THE FUCKING CHRIST HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY? Then crawl into a corner and whimper for eight hours straight. (That's what I did.)

[Ally · Rating 5 out of 5]

Praise God I'm an American. One should not be able to graduate public high schools without mastery of Basic Economics & The Federalist Papers.

[Karen Chung · Rating 5 out of 5]

With all the talk in political discourse these days about "what the US Founding Fathers intended", I felt it was time to go straight to the source. If you've ever had similar thoughts, this is the place to start. This work is long - around 22 hours of Librivox audio - and written in archaic, ornate English. But anyone reading it will be immediately impressed by its scholarship and depth. It also gives a clear picture of what said Founding Fathers were up against - unbridled, often unprincipled, and outright rude opposition to pretty much every last bit of the Constitution at every turn. This series of essays was painstakingly written to try and convince the country that, while the new Constitution was not and could not be perfect, it was urgently needed to get the Union government functional, and that it was perhaps the best that could be done, given an imperfect world and us imperfect humans. The writers of the new Constitution were clearly trying their utmost to create a government and society as fair, conflict-free and well-functioning as they could manage. Interesting how slaves were reluctantly counted, in a compromise with the South, as having 3/5 the personhood of a free-born man. Really, every American, and anybody interested in how power, justice, and societies work, should read this carefully. It's left me a little tired, but happy and satisfied.

[Callum's Column · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 essays authored by Alexander Hamilton (51), James Madison (29), and John Jay (5). They were written over six months and published under the alias of Publius in various New York newspapers. The authors' raison d'etre was to convince New York citizens to ratify the United States Constitution that had been drafted in 1787. The former Articles of Confederation had proved ineffective, particularly in areas concerning self-defence, taxation, and commerce. With the rise of American global hegemony, the Federalist Papers have become some of the most influential works of political science in modern times.

This book is quite long, and, in parts, repetitive. This is not the authors' fault, as the essays were not originally conceived as a cohesive book. Consequently, for those with limited time, I recommend selective reading. Essays of note include Federalist 10 about the role of factions within the republic; Federalist 32 on taxation powers; Federalist 39 respecting the benefits of the new nation; Federalist 42 on the scope of federal power; Federalist 51 regarding the checks and balances of the federalist system; Federalist 68 about the election of the president; and Federalist 78 regarding the independence of the federal judiciary.

Greco-Roman history is referenced throughout. In Federalist 9, for instance, Hamilton posited his dread at ancient republics' oscillation between tyranny and anarchy. Liberty intermittently flourished but was dismissed by 'tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage'. Only a firm union comprised of virtuous republican citizens can ensure peace and liberty. The present Republican Party led by Donald Trump is not philosophically republican. He incites rage and sedition--January 6th--and routinely calls for his opponents' imprisonment. Only constitutional checks and balances, rooted in ancient principles, are preventing his dictatorial ambitions.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without restraint.

Like any educated American who hasn’t already read this book, this classic has long been on my reading list. Nevertheless, even amongst us haughty literati, I suspect that this book is a Mark Twain kind of classic—one that we wish to have read, but don’t look forward to actually reading. It certainly was that way for me. Philistine that I am, the idea of leafing through 500 pages of articles by this country’s founding fathers did not exactly give me goosebumps.

I’m afraid that my fears were partially borne out by this book. It was not terribly pleasant. And if I am to be honest, I must shamefacedly admit that I often found these articles dreadfully dull. One obstacle to my reading pleasure simply came from the style of writing. These pieces were written in great haste, over the span of a year, by harried men who were not professional thinkers or writers. As a result, this book can often feel a bit haphazard and disorganized. Several papers seem as though they were dashed off between breakfast and lunch; the arguments tumble forward in a torrential outpouring of frenetic scribbling. The prose, too, was often cramped, bloated, and opaque:

The circumstances of the body authorized to make the permanent appointments would, of course, have governed the modification of a power which related to the temporary appointments; and as the national Senate is the body whose situation is alone contemplated in the clause upon which the suggestion under examination has been founded, the vacancies to which it alludes can only be deemed to respect those officers in whose appointment that body has a concurrent agency with the President.

Another disappointment was simply the method of argumentation. The words “probably” and “likely” do a great deal of work in these papers. The authors are constantly making light of certain possibilities and boldly predicting others. This rhetorical device is seldom convincing. Who knows what the future will bring? A related technique is to use what Dawkins calls the “argument from personal incredulity.” This is when an author says things like “It is impossible for me to believe,” or “I cannot even imagine this to be so,” and the like. Again, the author is using the seeming likelihood of a certain outcome as an argument; but unfortunately for us reality doesn't care what we find easy to believe, or what we think likely to happen.

So because the arguments employed were not based on either philosophical principles or empirical data, I was often left cold. In fact, I was frequently reminded of a criticism Bertrand Russell made of St. Thomas Aquinas. Russell did not consider Aquinas to be a great philosopher because Aquinas began with his conclusions, which he got from Aristotle and the Bible, instead of following his logic wherever it led. Similarly, the authors of these papers started with their conclusion—that we should ratify the Constitution—and then grasped for arguments, like a lawyer defending his client. Of course, that’s the nature of propaganda; but it isn’t very intellectually stimulating.

Aside from the writing and the rhetoric, a third barrier to a pleasant reading experience for me was simply the subject-matter. Many of these essays get into the nitty-gritty of the proposed administration. It often felt as if I were reading a proposal to reorganize a department at work rather than a book of political philosophy. I’m sure if I wasn’t such a troglodyte I would have gotten more out of these managerial niceties; but as I am still thoroughly lodged under a rock, I frequently found it impossible to focus. My eyes would get blurry; my brain would turn off; and I would read several pages on autopilot before realizing that I wasn’t absorbing a thing.

Alright, so I’ve discussed all the negatives. But despite all I’ve said, I still think this book is well worth reading. Madison’s essays, in particular, were for me the real highlight, even though they only comprised about a third of this book. Compared with Hamilton, Madison is much more of a theorist. His famous Federalist No. 10 is as deep as anything in Montesquieu, Marx, Machiavelli, or any other political philosopher whose name starts with an M. What’s more, he struck me as more widely learned, often making reference to ancient history as illustrations. And to be fair, the indefatigable Hamilton, though often tiresome, is not without his moments of greatness. He at least possesses the merit of being diligent and thorough.

Yet the real treat, I’d argue, is not reading the articles themselves, but reading the Constitution afterwards. By the time you get to the very end of The Federalist Papers, and turn to that slim founding document in the very back, you will have spent a dozen or more hours interpreting, defending, and exploring these 10 humble pages, tucked away like an appendix. Every sentence in the Constitution has been explained, clarified, and justified with excruciating care. And as a result, it was as if I was reading it for the first time—which is worth some literary boredom and headache, if you ask me.

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Federalism in America is not an easy thing. It's complicated. The various British governments that founded thirteen North American colonies over a 125-year time span had no intention of eventually molding those colonies into an independent republic. The colonies differed in size, in population, and in culture; and when they eventually did become a new nation, the Articles of Confederation that first constituted their government proved inadequate to the task. A convention at Philadelphia, in the summer of 1787, assigned itself the task of writing a new and stronger Constitution for the United States of America; and when the state of New York in particular reacted coolly to the proposed Constitution, three great Americans set out to persuade New Yorkers that this new Constitution was something that New Yorkers and all Americans needed.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, writing under the pseudonym “The Federalist,” published 77 essays in three New York newspapers between October 1787 and April 1788. And New York did eventually ratify the Constitution, although late (11th out of 13) and narrowly (by a 30-27 vote). Beyond those immediate historical circumstances, however, The Federalist Papers, as published here in book form by Yale University Press with eight additional essays, provide an essential look at constitutional government itself.

As Hamilton, Madison, and Jay review the different constitutional arrangements attempted by various nation-states throughout history and around the world, they find many of said arrangements wanting. The three are all arguing energetically for the abandonment of the old Articles of Confederation, and for their replacement by a new Constitution that will give the central government the power it needs to run a modern nation safely and effectively. One senses in Madison’s and Hamilton’s words approval of a central government strong enough to exceed at times the strict limits of its constitutional authority, if doing so will preserve the health of the nation and the security of its people.

Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were acutely aware of the core argument that would be advanced by opponents of the new Constitution: that the 1787 convention at Philadelphia had been charged only with revising the Articles of Confederation – not with throwing them out altogether and setting up an entirely new system of government for the United States of America. It is for this reason that the three offer strong counterarguments against such thinking, as when Madison in The Federalist No. 40 on January 18, 1788, asks stubborn supporters of the Articles to consider the following question: “Let them declare, whether it was of most importance to the happiness of the people of America, that the articles of Confederation should be disregarded, and an adequate government be provided, and the Union preserved; or that an adequate government should be omitted, and the articles of Confederation preserved” (p. 200). In this installment of The Federalist (its subject: “The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained”), the three Federalists make clear their sense of the urgency of the present situation, and their sense that the new Constitution is the only true guarantor of peace and stability for the young U.S.A.

The governments of the thirteen states were acutely jealous of their own rights, and suspicious of any attempt to strengthen federal power at their own expense; and one can see Hamilton in particular deploying all of his brilliance as a rhetor to overcome such arguments. Indeed, any first-time reader of The Federalist Papers is likely to see quickly the extent to which it is truly Hamilton's book; the song "Non-Stop" from the hit musical Hamilton points out that, even though the work of writing the essays was supposed to be "divided evenly among the three men", what happened in fact was that "John Jay got sick after writing five/James Madison wrote 29/Hamilton wrote the other 51". Non-stop indeed.

In The Federalist No. 59 of February 22, 1788 (“Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members”), Hamilton deploys that vast energy of his in addressing objections to the provision in Article I, clause 1, section 4, that the federal Congress may make or alter the regulations that the states set up for the holding of elections for U.S. senators and representatives. With a bit of the fiery impatience that was so much a part of his character, Hamilton states that the propriety of this constitutional provision “rests upon the evidence of this plain proposition, that every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation” (p. 300; emphasis in original). Hamilton has no intention of sitting idly by while power-hungry state governments starve the federal government into annihilation: “Nothing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it, by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs” (p. 301). Clearly, none of that is going to happen on Alexander Hamilton’s watch, if Hamilton has anything to do with it.

Hamilton in particular brings that same forcefulness of argument to such subjects as the independence of the federal judiciary. In The Federalist No. 79 of June 18, 1788, he writes that “In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will. And we can never hope to see realized in practice, the complete separation of the judicial from the legislative power, in any system which leaves the former dependent for pecuniary resources on the occasional grants of the latter” (p. 398; emphasis in original). Always, the three Federalists keep in mind potential abuses of the system, and argue that the new Constitution is set up so carefully, so meticulously, that no such abuse is possible.

Modern readers may take issue with some elements of this classic defense of and apologia for the United States Constitution. The original Constitution, for example, did not contain a Bill of Rights. Hamilton argues in The Federalist No. 84, published in three installments in July and August of 1788, that “bills of rights…are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous” (p. 433), and even claims that “the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS” (p. 435; emphasis in original). But not everyone went along with Hamilton’s argument. George Mason of Virginia was among those who felt that a constitution without a bill of rights went too far in giving the government power; and as we all know, the Bill of Rights did eventually become a part of the Constitution.

Similarly, when Hamilton in The Federalist No. 70 (March 15, 1788) defends the establishment of an energetic executive branch, on grounds that “a feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government” (p. 354), it is interesting to wonder what Hamilton and the other authors of The Federalist might think regarding the way in which presidential power has grown since the end of the Second World War. In the nuclear age, a president might have only 30 minutes in which to decide whether or not to launch atomic weapons of terrible destructive power; there is no time in which to convene 535 members of Congress and ask for a formal declaration of war, and the president’s staff always carries the well-known “football” of nuclear codes, ready at a moment’s notice. Under those circumstances, wars initiated by presidential action rather than declared by Congress have become a new normal – something that might well trouble Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

Still, The Federalist Papers hold great power as a defense of American constitutional government. This Yale University Press edition of The Federalist Papers includes a helpful introduction by Ian Shapiro and three scholarly essays by various scholars discussing the Constitution’s long-term and worldwide impact, as well as the complete texts of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with its amendments. It is like having a complete seminar in constitutional theory, all within the limits of a 579-page book.

Whether one’s own political sympathies would tend to be Federalist or Anti-Federalist, every reader with an interest in the question of how to reconcile government power with the rights of the citizen – and certainly every American – should read The Federalist Papers.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, I'm going to begin with a bitch.
THIS "BOOK" WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON. IT IS NOT A BOOK. IT IS A COMPILATION OF SEVERAL ESSAYS WRITTEN UNDER THE PSEUDONYM "PUBLIUS" AND THE AUTHOR(S) WERE ANONYMOUS FOR A LONG TIME.
The true authorship of these was only known several years after the fact. And took several decades after the authors had been determined to finalize exactly who wrote what.
Furthermore, virtually ever copy includes at least a copy of the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and (if you're very lucky) The Articles of confederation.
None of the US foundational documents were conceivably written by Alexander Hamilton. However, he did write the vast majority of the Federalist Papers.

There are hundreds of printings of this work. The copy I read well over 200 times (well, the first 30 of the federalists or so, anyway) was a deep red mass market paperback. I can't remember the publisher. There was a publisher that made all its mass market "classic" paperbacks in deep red for awhile. It had the lovely disintegrating acidic paper, and the binding was just starting to fall apart as I slugged the bottle of champagne and vowed to not read the work again until I was 30.

Anyway, this is an incredible book if you're willing to read it well. That means at least one week for one paper. I'm not kidding. It benefits very much from close reading.

All the hype is true, but reading it poorly makes it sound like pithy bullshit. Follow the terminology in the paper, and put together the relationships between all terms. Anyway, read it.

[Gator · Rating 4 out of 5]

First and foremost let me just say, God Bless These United States of America.

Significance of this book is beyond a 5. Enjoyability is below a 3. Hence I’ll meet in the middle and give it a 4.

If your going into reading this thinking it’s going to be awesome, you’re wrong. It’s a full time job and it’s extraordinarily difficult, however difficult it may be it is essential reading. These men were brilliant and I am incredibly thankful they existed at the Time they did to allow us the future we live in. The fact that all these men existed in this place at the same time to create such an all star team is nothing short of divine providence.

I agree with so much of the reviews I’ve seen here on Goodreads on TFP, it should be mandatory education from 1-8 and all thru high school. The youth would benefit tremendously to know how much blood, sweat, and tears was poured into creating the nation we all so thoroughly enjoy today. Not only should this education be taught in school but the foundation of this education should be laid at home to our children long before they arrive.

As difficult as this book was to read, and so utterly boring most of the time I absolutely loved it and I highly encourage anyone thinking about reading it do so with earnest expedience.

“Accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Madison, #47)

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” (Madison, #51)

“Whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.” (Hamilton, # 84)

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow...This book has completely transformed my views and understanding of our government. The US constitution make so much more sense now that I have read its defense. It's also interesting to read some of the outlandish arguments that were propagated against this ingenious document. Not much has changed in American politics over the centuries. Our media, pundits, and politicians still banter in much the same way today as they did back in the 1780's.

I will admit that this book challenged me. The arguments were hard to comprehend at times and I really had to bear down in order to gain some understanding. I also spent roughly one quarter of my reading time looking up words in the dictionary. Makes me regret the time I spent in front of the television or video games instead of sharpening my mind. Keep in mind that the Federalist Papers were originally published as a series of essays in a New York newspaper. In comparison, I believe that much of today's news has been watered down for a society that has little patience for a real, thorough debate of substantial issues.

[kezzie ʚ♡ɞ · Rating 2 out of 5]

✩ 2 stars
~
[read for high school ‘junior year’ great books class]
~
now i want to go listen to hamilton bc that’s more fun then this book was <333

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.0 stars. One of the most important works of American political science and philosophy, this collection of arguments detailing the benefits and advantages of the federal system as envisioned by the founding fathers is a must read to understand the beginnings of the republic.

[Hailey Hudson · Rating 2 out of 5]

HAMILTON WROTE THE OTHER FIFTY-ONE

[edit--I haven't actually read this book, I just felt like commenting that]

[Connie G · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Federalist" is a collection of 85 essays published originally in New York state newspapers in 1787-1788 encouraging the ratification of the Constitution. The pseudonym Publius was used for the three intelligent authors--Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The authors were responding to criticisms against the Constitution by the anti-Federalists who also wrote newspaper articles. (Some of the concerns of the anti-Federalists were addressed in the Bill of Rights in 1791.)

"The Federalist" discussed the need for a strong central government which included a standing army and taxation, the weakness of the current Articles of Confederation, the structure of the branches of government under the new Constitution, checks and balances, separation of powers, and the ratification process. There is some repetition of ideas in the essays since "The Federalist" was not written as a book originally.

The framers of the Constitution came from small and large states, and from urban and rural areas. Some states had many areas of commerce and industry where others were mostly agricultural. Some states supported slavery, but others wanted to outlaw it. Some of the Founding Fathers wanted a strong central government, but others were more concerned with states rights. The Constitution may not be perfect, but it was quite an accomplishment considering the different interests of the various states and the willingness to compromise. "The Federalist" helped the people understand the Constitution in 1787, and is still consulted by the courts today.

[Jessica]

I don't know who's a bigger jackass: me, for never having so much as peeped at these, or the grownps at all the various schools I've attended, for not even once suggesting I should.

Actually, that's a lie. I totally do know.

[brianna]

i barely understood this book

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

85 papers written by Hamilton, Madison & John Jay laying out the arguments for voting for the new Constitution instead of keeping the Articles of the Confederation, dissecting their vision of the structure and execution of the government. Why is this not required reading for every voting citizen??!! I especially think every elected federal official should have to read it annually to remind themselves what the Constitution is all about and how they should conduct themselves for the good of the country. I've had this on my shelf since 1982, but was inspired this past year to read it after reading Founding Brothers and all the horrible comments from talking heads on either side of the aisle who seem to think they are experts on the subject. Need to go to the source material to really understand. Yes, some of it is dry and repetitive, but most of the papers are beautifully laid out and even at times elegantly written. Many of the arguments and concerns sound SO current!! Hard to believe they wrote these essays over 200 yrs ago.

My plan was to read one paper/day, and give some time for absorption & reflection. Well my journey lasted 6 months versus 3, but worth the time and effort to read this important work!

[William Cooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential source for understanding how America works, the Federalist Papers emerged shortly after the founders drafted the Constitution. They were a series of 85 newspaper columns written by political leaders James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, under the pen name Publius. Urging the states to ratify the constitution, the columns expounded on its reasoning, language, and structure. 

For example, Hamilton, in Federalist 22, highlighted the central importance of government by consent: “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid bases of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”  

Madison, in Federalist 51, wrote about how the structure of government must accept and harness the realities of human nature: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” 

And Madison, in Federalist 58, emphasized the importance of governmental checks and balances: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy so that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” 

Today, it's common for people to focus myopically on the Constitution’s errors. Columnist Ryan Cooper, for example, expressed sentiments common on the left: “The American Constitution is an outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk—and it’s only getting worse. When written, the Constitution made a morally hideous compromise with slavery that took a war and 750,000 lives to make right. And while its basic structure sort of worked for a while in the 20th century, the Constitution is now falling prey to the same defects that have toppled every other similar governing document the world over.” 

Meanwhile, many others over-emphasize the Constitution’s virtues. America’s 40th president Ronald Reagan (still a conservative champion) expressed a view common on the right: “If our Constitution has endured, through times perilous as well as prosperous, it has not been simply as a plan of government, no matter how ingenious or inspired that might be. This document that we honor today has always been something more to us, filled us with a deeper feeling than one of simple admiration—a feeling, one might say, more of reverence.”

Neither extreme view gets it right. Some parts of the Constitution are quite dreadful. And some parts are extremely positive. America’s founding document should thus be criticized  and also celebrated—not one or the other. 

It's a great irony of human history that the same document that contains numerous abominations—some of which still reverberate today—also sets forth an essential architecture of government that has dramatically increased human flourishing.

All of this is true at the same time.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, folks, I finally did it. It took a combination of audio and print but I finally finished The Federalist Papers.
Whew.
I went in expecting to love it. I loved Two Treatises of Government. And I loved An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. (Though I haven't finished it yet.) And I loved The Spirit of the Laws. So, it isn't like dense political theory phases me. Particularly when it connects to American constitutional law--one of my favorite subjects. This was going to be easy, right?
WRONG.



I think the problem is you go in expecting theory and get procedure instead. This is the nitty-gritty details of constitutional governance. It references historical examples and quotes political philosophers, but mostly to explain why the constitution was written the way it was. There are details about why state governments will hold more loyalty than the federal government, why the states must unite, why a term limit of four years will curb presidential power, and how pride (if not patriotism) will keep representatives in check.

At the end of the day, I have to go with 5 stars. It is the Federalist Papers. I remain in awe of what these men managed to accomplish with their writing. But I will freely say this was not an interesting or even enjoyable read.




Also, shoutout to Dan who I convinced to read the Federalist Papers with me in high school which I obviously then did not do even though he did and still holds it against me. Sorry 'bout that.

[David Huff · Rating 5 out of 5]

We can all probably think of certain books we "should have read" during high school, or college, and somehow never did. For me, the collection of short essays that make up The Federalist Papers was one of those books. Since I love my country and am an ardent believer in her Constitution, my lengthy delay in reading TFP is both ironic and embarrassing. Now, however, my conscience is assuaged and I appreciate the Constitution, and the complicated path to its birth, all the more.

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 essays, published in newspapers over a span of several months in 1787-1788. Authored mostly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, with a few by John Jay, the papers were published anonymously under the pen name Publius. Their purpose was to make a comprehensive, detailed and compelling case for the adoption and ratification of a new United States Constitution to supersede the existing Articles of Confederation.

The 18th century intellectual arguments put forth in these essays make some demands on the reader (this is not a beach read), but it is time well invested. The adoption of a new Constitution was controversial, and surrounded with much energetic debate (including similar essays published by the Anti-Federalists). Accordingly, the three writers of the Federalist Papers went to great lengths to make the case for the foundations of what is now our current system of government.

As you read, you will see the varying currents of ideas that gradually became our executive, legislative and judicial branches. There are many historical references to republics and political systems from centuries past, and the essays are a great tutorial in making a reasoned argument and defending it. Fascinating reading about the birth and evolution of the greatest of republics!

[Zaphirenia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Propaganda at its very best and finest. Διότι όπως λέει και ο Hamilton στο πρώτο άρθρο του βιβλίου, "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."

Το βιβλίο αποτελείται από ογδόντα πέντε κείμενα, δημοσιευμένα το 1788 σε εφημερίδες των ΗΠΑ, με σκοπό την προώθηση της επικύρωσης του Συντάγματος των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών από τις Πολιτείες που απελευθερώθηκαν μετά την Αμερικανική Επανάσταση. Όλα τα κείμενα απευθύνονται "στους πολίτες της Πολιτείας της Νέας Υόρκης", αλλά στην πραγματικότητα είναι μία απάντηση σε εκείνους που επέκριναν το νέο Σύνταγμα και υποστήριζαν ότι οι Πολιτείες έπρεπε να διατηρήσουν την αυτονομία τους στο πλαίσιο της Συνομοσπονδίας των Αμερικανικών Πολιτειών (Confederation). Πρόκεται για κείμενα προπαγνδιστικού χαρακτήρα με νομικά, πολιτικά και λογικά επιχειρήματα υπέρ της νέας μορφής που επρόκειτο να λάβουν οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της Αμερικής.

Για όσους ενδιαφέρονται για την ιστορία αυτής της υπερδύναμης, είναι ένα εκπληκτικά ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο. Προφανώς η θεώρηση των συγγραφέων των άρθρων δεν είναι αντικειμενική, δεδομένου ότι έχουν έναν πολύ συγκεκριμένο σκοπό, είναι όμως εξαιρετικά καλογραμμένα όλα και υποδειγματικά ως προς τον τρόπο ανάπτυξης της θέσης τους και τον τρόπο που... πετσοκόβουν τους πολιτικούς τους αντιπάλους. Επίσης, δεν είναι όλα τα κείμενα το ίδιο ενδιαφέροντα. Υπάρχουν κάποια τα οποία αναπτύσσουν πολύ τεχνικά σημεία του Συντάγματος και τα οποία για κάποιον μη Αμερικανό ίσως δεν έχουν τόσο ενδιαφέρον. Συνολικά, όμως, είναι πολύ διαφωτιστικό για τον τρόπο σκέψης που οδήγησε στο αμερικανικό Σύνταγμα και τις ΗΠΑ όπως τις ξέρουμε σήμερα.

Τώρα, γιατί χρειάστηκε όλη αυτή η προσπάθεια για να επικυρωθεί το Σύνταγμα; Δεν το θέλανε οι Αμερικανοί;

Στα μέσα της δεκαετίας του 1780, οι δεκατρείς Πολιτείες της Αμερικής που είχαν κερδίσει την ανεξαρτησία τους κατά την Αμερικανική Επανάσταση, βρέθηκαν σε ένα κρίσιμο σημείο της αμερικανικής ιστορίας. Η επονομαζόμενη Συνομοσπονδία (Confederation) δε λειτουργούσε. Καθόλου όμως. Χρήματα δεν υπήρχαν και όταν υπήρχαν οι Πολιτείες τα κρατούσαν για τον εαυτό τους χωρίς να στέλνουν την εισφορά τους στο στο Κοινοβούλιο της Συνομοσπονδίας (Congress), όπως είχαν υποσχεθεί. Οι Πολιτείες δεν έστελναν αντιπροσώπους στο εθνικό Κοινοβούλιο , είχαν η καθεμία το δικό της στρατό και ναυτικό και επεδίωκαν να συνάπτουν ξεχωριστές εμπορικές συμφωνίες με άλλες χώρες.

Enter Alexander Hamilton. Με θητεία στον αμερικανικό στρατό κατά την Επανάσταση και έχοντας διατελέσει επιτελάρχης του Washington για τέσσερα χρόνια, ο Hamilton πίστευε απόλυτα (όπως και ο ίδιος ο Washington) στην ύπαρξη μιας ισχυρής κεντρικής εθνικής κυβέρνησης, η οποία θα επέτρεπε στις ΗΠΑ να προκόψουν επιτέλους. Το Σεπτέμβριο 1786, αντιπρόσωποι από πέντε Πολιτείες (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia) συναντήθηκαν στην Annapolis και συμφώνησαν ότι τα Άρθρα της Συνομοσπονδίας (Articles of the Confederation) οπωσδήποτε δε βοηθούσαν την απελπιστική οικονομική και πολιτική κατάσταση της χώρας και υπέγραψαν μία δήλωση την οποία συνέταξε ο Hamilton (αντιπρόσωπος της Νέας Υόρκης), με την οποία καλούσαν τους αντιπροσώπους των Πολιτειών να συναντηθούν το Μάιο 1787 στη Philadelphia και να αναθεωρήσουν τα Άρθρα της Συνομοσπονδίας και να συντάξουν ένα νέο Σύνταγμα των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών της Αμερικής.

Έτσι, το Μάιο του 1787 πραγματοποιήθηκε το συνέδριο στη Philadelphia, στόχος του οποίου στην πραγματικότητα ήταν να ενδυναμωθεί η εθνική κυβέρνηση της Συνομοσπονδίας. Παρόντες ήταν η creme de la creme προφανώς: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (από τη Virginia), John Dickinson (από το Delaware) και άλλα μεγάλα ονόματα της εποχής. Γρήγορα έγινε σαφές ότι "οκ, είπαμε να κάνουμε τροποποιήσεις αλλά πραγματικά θα ήταν πολύ καλύτερα να το γράψουμε από την αρχή, έτσι δεν είναι"; Και έτσι έκαναν.

Εντελώς τυχαία, ο James Madison είχε ήδη στα σκαριά ένα έτοιμο Σύνταγμα όταν ξεκίνησε η συνεδρίαση, το οποίο οι αντιπρόσωποι πολύ γρήγορα αποφάσισαν να χρησιμοποιήσουν ως βάση. Ο Madison, υπερβολικά μικρόσωμος για να υπηρετήσει στο στρατό και μεγάλος βιβλιοφάγος, είχε μελετήσει σε βάθος τον Montesquieu και επομένως το όλο σύστημα βασίστηκε στην πολιτική θεωρία του τελευταίου περί διάκρισης των εξουσιών (που ισχύει και σήμερα σε όλες τις σοβαρές δημοκρατίες της Δύσης). Το αμερικανικό Σύνταγμα βασίστηκε στο πασίγνωστο σύστημα των "checks and balances", με βάση το οποίο κάθε μέρος της εθνικής κυβέρνησης (η Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων, η Γερουσία, η Εκτελεστική Εξουσία, τα Δικαστήρια) είναι ανεξάρτητο από τα άλλα αλλά ταυτόχρονα συνδέεται μαζί τους με τρόπο ώστε κανένα μέρος να μην μπορεί να αποκτήσει υπερβολική εξουσία η οποία θα βλάψει το πολίτευμα.

Όταν συμφωνήθηκε το κείμενο του Συντάγματος, ξεκίνησε ένας μεγάλος αγώνας για την επικύρωσή του από τις Πολιτείες. Απέναντι στους υποστηρι��τές και συντάκτες του, που πίστευαν ότι μόνο μια ισχυρή κεντρική εξουσία μπορεί να πάει μπροστά τις ΗΠΑ, στάθηκαν όσοι θεωρούσαν ότι οι Πολιτείες πρέπει να είναι αυτόνομες και ανεξάρτητες και να έχουν μία χαλαρή σύνδεση μεταξύ τους στο πλαίσιο της Συνομοσπονδίας. Κάτι όμως που είχε ήδη δοκιμαστεί και αποτύχει οικτρά. Οι πρώτοι, που υποστήριζαν την ισχυρή ομοσπονδιακή κυβέρνηση, ονομάστηκαν Federalists και έδωσαν στους αντιπάλους τους την ονομασία Anti-Federalists. Στους επιφανέστερους των πρώτων ανήκουν και ο Alexander Hamilton, ο James Madison και ο John Jay που εξέδωσαν αυτά τα άρθρα, προσπαθώντας να πείσουν το λαό των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών (ή τουλάχιστον εκείνο το μέρος του λαού που η γνώμη του μετρούσε).

Γιατί προφανώς ένα κείμενο που συμφώνησαν να ονομάσουν "Σύνταγμα των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών" ορισμένοι πολιτικοί και διανοούμενοι δε σήμαινε απολύτως τίποτα εάν δεν δεσμεύονταν από αυτό οι ίδιες οι Πολιτείες. Όσο πρωτοποριακό και φιλελεύθερο και αν ήταν όμως το νέο Σύνταγμα, η επικύρωσή του από τα 2/3 των Πολιτειών, εννέα Πολιτείες δηλαδή, δεν ήταν απλή υπόθεση. Από την άλλη μεριά, ακόμα και εάν το Σύνταγμα επικυρωνόταν από εννέα πολιτείες, θα ήταν δύσκολο να εφαρμοστεί αποτελεσματικά εάν σημαντικές Πολιτείες όπως η Βιρτζίνια ή η Μασαχουσέτη δεν προχωρούσαν στην επικύρωση. Επιπλέον, οι "Anti-Federalists" ήταν και αυτοί βετεράνοι της Επανάστασης, με μεγάλο πολιτικό βάρος και πίστευαν ότι το Σύνταγμα πρόδιδε το αληθινό πνεύμα της Επανάστασης το ίδιο έντονα που πίστευαν και οι Federalists ότι η επικύρωση αποτελούσε μονόδρομο για την πραγμάτωση του πνεύματος της ίδιας Επανάστασης. Τρία από τα σημεία που προκάλεσαν τριβή ήταν:

1) Ο αριθμός των βουλευτών. Ένα από τα βασικά ζητήματα ήταν με ποιο κριτήριο θα επιλεγόταν ο αριθμός των βουλευτών κάθε Πολιτείας του Κονγκρέσου. Το Σύνταγμα που είχε συντάξει ο Madison, ο οποίος σημειωτέον ήταν από τη Virginia, μία από τις μεγαλύτερες και πλουσιότερες Πολιτείες, είχε ως βάση τον πληθυσμό, κάτι που δεν ικανοποιούσε τις μικρότερες Πολιτείες που δε θα είχαν ισότιμη αντιπροσώπευση και υποστήριζαν ότι κάθε Πολιτεία έπρεπε να έχει ισότιμη ψήφο με τις υπόλοιπες. Παρότι σε πρακτικό επίπεδο το ζήτημα είναι προφανές, θεωρητικά ντύθηκε με την προβληματική εάν το αμερικανικό Κοινοβούλιο αντιπροσωπεύει τις Πολιτείες (οπότε 1 Πολιτεία = 1 ψήφος) ή του λαού (οπότε οι αντιπρόσωποι θα πρέπει να εκλέγονται αναλογικά βάσει πληθυσμού). Η λύση που υιοθετήθηκε τελικά ήταν το διπλό σύστημα που ξέρουμε σήμερα: αναλογική αντιπροσώπευση στη Βουλή Αντιπροσώπων, ισότιμη αντιπροσώπευση Πολιτειών στη Γερουσία (2 Γερουσιαστές ανά Πολιτεία). Το σύστημα ικανοποίησε τα μέλη της επιτροπής, αλλά κάπως έπρεπε να το πουλήσουν και παραέξω.

2) Ο πρόεδρος. Στην αυγή της ανεξαρτησίας τους, οι Αμερικανοί είχαν έντονη αλλεργία σε οτιδήποτε θύμιζε Αγγλία. Και τι βρωμάει Αγγλία από χιλιόμετρα; That's right, η βασιλεία. Το Σύνταγμα προέβλεπε ισχυρή εκτελεστική εξουσία. Αυτό κρίθηκε απαραίτητο προκειμένου να υπάρχει έλεγχος και ενότητα στην κυβέρνηση, αλλά δημιουργούσε και έντονη ανησυχία ότι μπορεί να δημιουργούσε πάτημα για την εγκαθίδρυση ενός αντιδημοκρατικού καθεστώτος, όπου ο πρόεδρος θα ισοδυναμούσε με το βασιλιά. Και ενώ εκείνη τη στιγμή αυτό δεν ήταν πρόβλημα γιατί ο πρώτος πρόεδρος της Αμερικής ήταν δεδομένος και έχαιρε της πλήρους εμπιστοσύνης όλων, τι θα γινόταν μετά;

3) Οι σκλάβοι. Η δουλεία είχε καταργηθεί στο Βορρά, η οικονομία του Νότου όμως εξακολουθούσε να στηρίζεται σε αυτόν τον ευγενή θεσμό. Ένα από τα βασικά προβλήματα ήταν κατά πόσο οι σκλάβοι θα έπρεπε να υπολογίζονται στον πληθυσμό για την εκλογή των βουλευτών στη Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων. Οι βόρειοι προφανώς δεν ήθελαν να υπολογίζονται οι σκλάβοι, διότι σε αυτήν την περίπτωση αυξανόταν υπερβολικά ο πληθυσμός των νότιων Πολιτειών. Τα εκατέρωθεν επιχειρήματα είναι εξαιρετικά ντροπιαστικά για το ανθρώπινο είδος όπως το αντιλαμβανόναστε τον 20ό και 21ο αιώνα, αλλά τότε αποτελούσε ένα σημαντικό ζήτημα που απαιτούσε λύση. Βεβαίως οι ρόλοι ήταν αντίστροφοι στο ερώτημα κατά πόσο οι σκλάβοι έπρεπε να ληφθούν υπόψη στον πληθυσμό για τον υπολογισμό της οικονομικής εισφοράς κάθε Πολιτείας στην Ένωση. Σε αυτήν την περίπτωση, οι νότιοι προτιμούσαν να μείνουν εκτός οι σκλάβοι, ενώ οι βόρειοι είχαν την αντίθετη άποψη, γιατί δεν ήθελαν να πέσει πάνω τους το οικονομικό βάρος συντήρησης της κυβέρνησης. Ο συμβιβασμός που έγινε τελικά, και τον οποίον έπρεπε να σερβίρουν οι φίλοι μας στους συμπολίτες τους, ήταν τόσο ευρηματικός όσο και επονείδιστος: οι σκλάβοι θα μετρούσαν και στις δύο περιπτώσεις, ισοδυναμώντας με 3/5 του ανθρώπου.

Υπήρχαν βέβαια και άλλα σημαντικά σημεία. Η κοινή εμπορική πολιτική, ο στρατός, η έλλειψη πρόβλεψης για τα ατομικά δικαιώματα στο κείμενο του Συντάγματος και άλλα. Οι Πολιτείες βρέθηκαν αντιμέτωπες με ένα κείμενο που όχι μόνο δεν αποτελούσε μια απλή "τροποποίηση" των Άρθρων της Συνομοσπονδίας, αλλά που εγκαθιστούσε μία εντελώς διαφορετική μορφή διακυβέρνησης. Το πιο γνωστό από τα άρθρα είναι το νο. 10, στο οποίο ο Madison τεκμηριώνει ότι η ενότητα που διασφαλίζει το Σύνταγμα είναι ο μόνος τρόπος διατήρησης της δημοκρατίας έναντι των φραξιονισμών και ότι η δημοκρατία (ο όρος που χρησιμοποιείται είναι "republic" και όχι "democracy", δεδομένου ότι μιλάμε για αντιπροσωπευτική και όχι άμεση δημοκρατία) διατηρείται ευκολότερα σε ένα μεγάλο κράτος. Πολύ σημαντικό επίσης είναι το νο. 51 για τη λειτουργία του συστήματος των "checks and balances".

Ο στόχος των Federalist Papers ηταν να εκπαιδευτεί ο λαός σε αυτό το νέο σύστημα, να το χωνέψουν και να κατανοήσουν την αναγκαιότητά του για την πρόοδο και την ευημερία του αμερικανικού λαού. Και παρότι μάλλον στην εποχή τους δεν διαβάστηκαν τόσο ευρέως ώστε να επηρεάσουν την επικύρωση, εκ των υστέρων αποτέλεσαν θεμελιώδες εγχειρίδιο για την ερμηνεία του Συντάγματος. Και ακόμα πιο εκ των υστέρων, ένα ιστορικής σημασίας βιβλίο.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's hard to rate a book like this. On the one hand, it's one of the foundational writings of American history; on the other hand, it's boring. Much of it is, anyway. Reading it seemed like such a good idea when I first picked it up at Barnes & Noble two or three years ago. I still think it's a book every American should read. I'm just glad I'm finished.
I was encouraged by what emerged as the worldview of these authors, as in this excerpt from Federalist 37, written by James Madison, as he reflected on the forces that brought together the United States:
"It is impossible, for the man of pious reflection, not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty Hand, which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."
And there's this response to spin from Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 36:
"They can answer no other end than to cast a mist over the truth."
Madison, Hamilton and John Jay had a robust vocabulary that would offer challenging words for any spelling bee. Among the words they used:

nugatory
excrescent
apothegm
mutability
animadversion

[Kelly Holmes · Rating 5 out of 5]

How many Americans can say they've read the Constitution? My guess is probably not many. And those that have only did it for school and have since forgotten much of what they learned. Personally, I remember having to memorize the Bill of Rights for a class, but that's about it.

So I bought a copy of the Constitution for myself and began reading it. It's important now more than ever that we read and understand it.

[Michael O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Federalist Papers was a tough slog to get through, but, like mining for diamonds, it was worth it. There are no published records of the internal deliberations of the Founding Fathers in their development of the U.S. Constitution ---- the Federalist Papers is really our only intense summary of their thinking in why they put its various measures in it. With some input from John Jay, the Papers are overwhelmingly the product of two great men who would later be political opponents -- James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Nevertheless, on the Constitution, these two very different men came together, and crafted one of the greatest works in political thought.

I think that, such as it is now, these United States are far from the Constitution --- due to modern developments of a constitutionally and economically ignorant citizenry; a craven, imperial President; a cowardly, short-sighted, selfish Congress; and last and, perhaps, most lethally, a Federal Court system that is out of touch, arrogant, politically active and ideological, unaccountable, constitutionally ignorant, and usurping of the power of legislation properly belonging to Congress.

I don't think that the Papers are for the average reader. They are written largely in 18th Century terminology, but, even for their times, seem intended for a highly educated, well-informed audience. However, every law student and every judge should demonstrate mastery and understanding of them. Moreover, no politician aspiring to high federal office has any business in such unless they have read and understand the Federalist Papers in my opinion. They are the source code of our Federal Republic, and the ignorance of the body politic and of the courts are sending America on the road to damnation.

[Davis Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Treatises on human nature from the perspective of liberal conservatism. It's a genuine pleasure to read the cultivated prose and passionate wisdom of these great statesmen, and there are so many hidden gems of insight about the art of politics—these are not just critical founding documents but contributions to the Great Tradition. Would that we still had men of power and influence who at least approached their caliber of eloquence, and their blend of practical realism with sturdy moral ideals.

[Nour (FREE PALESTINE) Books]

Alexander joins forces with James Madison and John Jay to write a series of essays Defending the new United States Constitution, entitled The Federalist Papers. The plan was to write a total of twenty-five essays, the work divided evenly among the three men (even tho 25 dived by three isn’t equal)
In the end, they wrote eighty-five essays in the span of six months…
John Jay got sick after writing five
James Madison wrote twenty-nine
Hamilton wrote the other FIFTY-ONE!

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don't let the 3 star rating mislead you. This is a brilliant summation of the Constitution by three of the smartest Founding Fathers: Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury), James Madison (Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the U.S.), and John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). It is such a shame that there are so few political geniuses in government today. The breadth of their knowledge, particularly Madison's, boggles the mind. Except for the fact that they took the view that the Constitution didn't need a bill of rights (that was passed after the writing of these papers), you will find no better examination of the Constitution. But that is one of the problems with "The Federalist Papers," it examines the structure of the federal government in detail (brilliantly too), but most of today's Constitutional questions revolve around the amendments to the Constitution. So, if you were looking for the Founding Fathers' ideas about the meaning behind the second amendment, you better find a different book. The other problem with the book is that while the language is not archaic (yet), it is still difficult for the average reader to grasp. If you didn't get a high verbal score on the SATs, look for the version in modern English. So really, this is a great book to read for the serious political scientist, but the average reader should look for something easier or limit themselves to Papers 10 and 51.

[Miss Clark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Boring as all get out, practically put me to sleep and still I ended up liking this book. How could I not in some ways? It presents the arguments of three men, who if I certainly did not admire, can certainly respect their passionately held opinions and their hopes for what America could be. Also, it really helped me to better understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the historical context that resulted in some of the seemingly odd or unnecessary clauses and stipulations.

And the sheer history of it! To understand that time and what people were concerned about. To think that hundreds and thousands of Americans read those same papers as they strove to chart the course of America's future and took them into account,as well as the Anti-Federalist papers (which I often lean toward).

An important, if somewhat somnambulent, read for every American!

[Xander · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 short essays, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to convince the readers of New York newspapers to support the institution of a federal Constitution.

In order to understand the content of these essays, it is important to understand the times in which they were written. The former 13 American colonies had revolted against the British Empire and declared their indepdence in 1776. But this was only the beginning, because the logical follow-up question soon arose: And what next?

There were, at the time, 13 states, which all had their own power structure and political and economic interests. For example, Northern states depended more on international trade, while Southern states depended more on the plantation industry. Adding to this the continuous westward exploration and settlement of new lands, and there would arise inevitable conflicts of interest between the states.

The recent struggle against the British (as well as against the French earlier in the century) had shown the American peoples on the one hand that there was a need for military, political and economic bundling of strength, while at the same time existing conflicts of interests would srve as future levers for European empires to manipulate. So, ultimately, the question boiled down to this: should we, the American inhabitant, unite under a Federal government, or should we remain independent states? Or, put in another form, should we institute a Federal Constitution which would bind all states to a common cause?

Each state had to decide the answer to this question for itself, meaning that in each state debate arose between federalists and anti-federalists. The authors of The Federalist Papers were federalists and tried to sway the reading public in New York to their cause. So, these 85 essays explain why a federal constitution is the only way out of the current problems, and how such a constitution and federal state should function in practice.

The interesting part, for me, is the realism portrayed by the authors, in that acknowledge the need for authority (due to the flawed nature of man) while also acknowledging that power corrupts and should be curbed. They draw on a wide range of sources for inspirations in order to come up with a concrete, comprehense view on how the American federal state should function.

In short, it should be a democratic republic, in which voters choose their representatives and in which a binding constitution clearly circumscribes the room for manoeuvre for administrators. Power is chopped up and placed into different state organs which then keep each other in balance; the whole system is a system of checks and balances, all designed to curb the malignent designs of scheming politicians and power-hungry despots. In a sense, the Union is designed to enforce deliberation and procrastrination in policiy-making and law-giving, in order to prevent the rise of a despot or monarch.

The doctrines of separation of powers and the institution of a system of checks and balances draw heavily on ideas as propagated by Montesquieu, while notions like republicanism and democracy draw heavily on Ancient Greece. When it comes to the protection of individual citizens against an oppressive and powerful state, the federalists draw heavily on ideas of John Locke. For example, the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are manifestations of the ultimate right to protect your life, property and liberty.

The essays themselves are rather contextual, meaning that one cannot fully understand them without any prior historical understanding of 18th century America. Also, the style of writing is very typical of the time - the English they use is beautiful, but for a modern reader rather longwinded. Lastly, the subject matter is abstract and dry by nature, and the manifold repeating of the same ideas over 400 pages can become rather boring (and rather quick, at that). Safe to say, one doesn't need to read all of the essays to understand the ideas Hamilton, Madison & Jay set out to defend.

(I always find it hard to rate books such as these. Historically, this book is very influential - still. Also, the subject matter is at times highly interesting. Yet the style of writing and the longwindedness are rather tiresome... So I'll just give two stars; take it for what it's worth.)

[Cary Giese · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read some of these papers in college as directed by my Professor, but had never read them all. This book should be studied and used as a reference! You have likely heard legal scholars refer to quotes that happen to be apt in a certain circumstance! But the point of having this book is to be able to understand the minds of the founders on every issue of the draft Constitution. Amazingly, these founder advocacy efforts was their pro-Constitution’s social media campaign. They and the anti-federalist used pen names to hide their identity, but history has identified them. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.

Most commonly quoted are numbers, 2, Jay, on foreign interference, 9, Hamilton,on protection against domestic insurrection, 10, Madison, same as 9, 14, Madison,the nations boundaries and scope, 23, Hamilton, on the need for a Federal Government for the common defense, 30, Hamilton, on the need for federal power of taxation, 51, Madison, on the powers vested in the federal government, 57, reiterating that citizenship was the only requirements for voting, and 68, Madison, on the reasoning of the construction of the house and senate.

Most interesting, Madison, in 62, is describing the need for stable figures in the senate who are older, have longer terms of office and represent each state with equal votes. They then would be less mutable (I.e. changeable/inconsistent) eliminating the mischievous effects of such a mutable government. “it (mutability) forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all advantages connected with national character.” (My comment, Surely Madison’s observation should also apply to our president if he believed it’s a must apply to Senators!!!)

Far and away the best writers are Hamilton and Madison. Jay’s style is full of commas separating diversionary comments, that causes his point often to be lost.

The books best-use is as a reference when trying to understand the reasoning of the founders leadingto the way our nation was to be constituted. Courts habitually have referenced these papers as justifications for their decisions.

The brilliance of these men is astonishing, their anticipation of issues uncanny! The miracle of our founding cannot be understood without reading these papers, and continuing to refer to them.

Clearly, reading these are necessary for every educated citizen.

Next I need to read the anti federalist papers!

[booklady]

I have had this audio book on my shelves for years and thought I might not be able to get through it, but now realize that is no excuse. Politics these days have deteriorated to such an extent I cannot read or watch any 'news' for long, whether it be mainstream or alternative. As a nation we have killed millions of babies and call it health-care for women. We have leaders in high office who call themselves 'Catholic' who support this and many other things contrary to the teachings of our faith and 'Catholic' bishops who not only do not speak out against their actions, but openly endorse them. This is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, nor do I believe is it what our founding fathers intended. In fear for all of our souls, I pray for every single person, born and preborn, that God have mercy on us. In between prayers, I will learn what our nation's founders really intended for our country because I cannot believe they meant for any of this.