This conversation will cover The Federalist Papers. A syllabus will be posted. Start Date will be October 19, 2009 and will go through April 30, 2010.

The Federalist Papers were written primarily by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. There are 85 entries. The first paper was delivered on October 27, 1787 and the concluding paper was delivered on August 13-16, 1788.

Here are some urls which will lead you to the text of these papers: (Choose the version, format, font you like; Gutenberg is downloadable.)

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpa...

Yale Law School: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus...

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00...

Emery Law: http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=31...

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers on Taxation:

http://www.ucopenaccess.org/courses/APUS...

Message for Chris:

Chris, would you like to be the moderator for this discussion (THE FEDERALIST PAPERS) when it begins? It really helps when everyone pitches in and helps moderate. I promise to participate with you so you will not feel alone if you give it a go. I believe this was your recommendation so I am hoping that you will run with it. Let me know.

I would enjoy that, but I will probably be deployed during that period of time. I will help as much as I can, though.

We could move up the dates if you would like and start this earlier; I know you said that you read these already; I put the dates out like I did because I thought that maybe I might have to do it. Certainly would appreciate your help on this and I would of course respond to you as well so that you would not be alone out on the thread.

I don't think that will be necessary. I think it is best to discuss the Federalist Papers after discussing the Constitution. Also, I'll probably be too busy at certain point during the next six months to dedicate the requisite time to making this a good discussion that everyone deserves. Would you mind letting me get back to you closer to the time to the discussion? I will have a much better idea of my situation.

That would be fine; no problem.

Here is a good site with all of the Federalist Papers:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federali...

This is the reading assignment for the week beginning October 19th through October 25th.

FEDERALIST No. 1 General Introduction Alexander (Hamilton)
October 19 - October 25 (page 27)

For those who would like a free copy:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federali...

The copy of the book that I am using is the following:






Check the syllabi thread for more details.

We will only be discussing one Federalist Paper a week and we will go in order.

Members can also discuss any previous Federalist paper on this thread which was already assigned and or introduced in previous weeks.

Please make sure to be clear which Federalist Paper you are referencing when you post.

However, we will not go ahead of the schedule on this thread. So as an example, in week one, we will be able to discuss only Federalist #1, Week Two we will be able to discuss Federalist #2 or a member can go back and make reference to Federalist #1; in Week Three members will be discussing Federalist #3; but members can also during Week 3 make reference to either Federalist #2 or # 1 at any time during that week's period.

But discussion on Federalist #4 cannot take place until Week 4 commences.

This will help us avoid spoilers for those members who are just catching up and it will help minimize confusion.

If anybody would like to kick off discussion of Federalist Paper #1 with some introductory discussion questions, comments, etc. Please feel free to do so.

I guess I'll start off with a few questions. Some things that could be asked before we start reading.

Why were the Federalist Papers written in the first place, and what major event ignited this discussion?

Who were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists?

Great introductory questions Joe...I will let others jump in....folks please feel free to answer Joe's queries. These are fundamental points which should be part of the initial conversation. So just dig right in.

Regarding the Federalists versus the anti-Federalists; one wanted a strong central government (obviously the Federalists) and the other was worried about exactly that point (the anti Federalists). Because the Federalists could not carry the day and ratify the constitution without the anti-Federalists, they agreed to draft the Bill of Rights. The Federalists were more organized than the anti- Federalists; but still needed one more state to get the Constitution ratified. In exchange the drafting of the Bill of Rights was the bargain made and a very useful one at that.

One could also say that the Anti-Federalists were also more concerned with states rights, were still smarting from the skirmishes with the British and the monarchy (strong entities) and were very much against the Constitution to begin with because of their worries about corrupted and unwielding power resulting in an ultimate erosion of personal liberties for the colonists much like they had suffered at the hands of the British.

The Anti-Federalists "denounced the Constitution as a radically centralizing document that would destroy American liberty and betray the principles of the Revolution." The Federalists argued "that the nation's problems were directly linked to the frail, inadequate Confederation and that nothing short of the Constitution would enable the American people to preserve their liberty and independence, the fruits of the Revolution." The differences were stark.

Source: Answer.com: Ratification of the Constitution
Url: http://www.answers.com/topic/ratificatio...
Another Source: Thinkquest
Url: http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/crea...

I also found it interesting to learn which side of the fence each founding father argued their positions from. Alexander Hamilton on one extreme, and Patrick Henry on the other. Maybe later on tonight I can elaberate on this further...

Yes, I did too, Joe. It was almost understandable which side these folks were on based upon their life experiences, etc. I look forward to reading your post.

To elaberate... Back in March, I picked up a book by Cliff Sloan called, The Great Decision Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court. It was a surprisingly exceptional read, describing the events just after the tumultuous election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson finally ended up winning that election on the 36th ballot in the House of Representatives on February 17, 1801. That gave John Adams and his Administration until March 4th to stamp his Federalist footprint on the new United States while he was still President. During that lame-duck session of Congress, Adams got the Judiciary Act of 1801 passed which enabled him to appoint numerous additional federal appeals court judges, called the 'Midnight Judges,' which were obviously Federalist minded. Also, Adam was able to appoint John Marshall as the 4th Chief Justice of the United States, who eventually famously shaped constitutional law and empowered the Supreme Court as the center of power. The book not only illuminated a few constitutional weaknesses, like the drawn-out election contest of the 1800 election, and the powerless Supreme Court of the time, but it also described the dividing line between the two political factions by reliving the transfer of power from the Federalists to Jefferson's Republican administration. The Federalist party never again recovered.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org

It's also interesting to note that George Washington was basically a Federalist, trusting the force of the Federalist party, Alexander Hamilton, to recommend lots of his administration's policy decisions. Washington although did believed that the two party system was harmful to the new forming nation because of the high tension and never ending debate caused by the opposing parties, but he was unequalled in conflict resolution because of his high stature.

That sounds like a fascinating book Joe. What a remarkable election that must have been (36 ballots).

I am not as surprised as you are that Washington was a Federalist. Most of the Federalists were fairly well heeled; business owners, land owners, bankers. Even Ben Franklin fell on the side of the Federalists.

In the source cited in message 8; a quote from that article basically identifies who of the founding fathers fell on which side:

"The Federalists--led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Dickinson, and Roger Sherman--had several advantages.

In a time of national political crisis, they offered a clear prescription for the nation's ills; they were well organized and well financed; and they were used to thinking in national terms and to working with politicians from other states.

They also had the support of the only two truly national political figures, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.

The Antifederalists--led by Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, George Clinton, Willie Jones, and Melancton Smith--counted among their advantages the support of most state politicians and the American people's distrust of strong central government.

Their most potent argument against the Constitution was that it lacked a bill of rights."

Source: Answer.com

If folks would like to listen and read along to an audio of Federalist Paper #1 - here is the link:

http://www.americanaphonic.com/?p=589

Publius

Readers will notice that a pseudonym was used with these essays. Alexander Hamilton wrote this first paper but also signed the essay with the "Publius" pseudonym.

"Publius," was used in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. Publicola had helped establish the Roman Republic and his name means "friend of the people".

Here is the wikipedia write-up on Publius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Val...

I didn't want to suggest that I was surprised that Washington was a Federalist, especially with his difficulties trying to win a war by having to deal with a powerless congress. But I was paying extra attention when I found out that Alexander Hamilton, who was given so much power in helping save the country's finances during Washington's presidency, expressed the most radical Federalist philosophy during the constitutional convention.

Yes, I understand your point. I think Washington was more than likely fed up by the powerless congress given the position that he found himself in. I always felt that Hamilton was rash and probably did not have the best reputation...although maybe some of that is the result of Adams absolutely hating him.

Most other historians paint Hamilton as brilliant, a great orator and very forward thinking. Washington regarded him as a loyal aide.

Maybe he was just too zealous because of his familial origins...his behavior often was risky.

Thanks, Bentley, for the list of Federalists and AntiFederalists. "You can't tell the players without a program." In my mind, all these men are historical figures, Founding Fathers who contributed significant things towards the beginning of my country. I forget they have different viewpoints, and especially who was on which side.

And thanks for all that history, Joe. That Supreme Court book sounds very interesting.

By the way, do I remember correctly that Jefferson was AntiFederalist? He somehow missed the answer.com list.

I think at the time Jefferson was out of the country..and I think he worked both camps. Some have said that he was an anti-federalist because of some of the actions he took when he came into office. However, in his First Inaugural Address he stated:

"We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.

If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself?

I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern.

Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

By the way, his reference to republicanism was not a reference to the current political party by the same name.

March 4, 1801 - First Inaugural Address

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html

I think Jefferson was a different breed of federalism...Jefferson hated the thought of corruption and misuse of power. He and Hamilton had clashed continually.

I think that Jefferson was very much like Madison and both of their terms represented many of the Federalists' ideals and a strong central government. They both seemed to abandon some of their Democratic-Republican beliefs. And remember federalism and anti-federalism were not political parties or entities.

Maybe his personal beliefs leaned towards anti-federalism but his government had a lot of federalist tendencies.

I think he is a tough one to call. One of the complaints that folks like Adams had about Jefferson was his double stance on issues. Maybe Joe and/or some others might be better versed on Jefferson...Bryan or Joe...any input on Elizabeth's question which is a great one.

This is an interesting article from the Monticello site, Elizabeth:

http://www.monticello.org/library/pdfs/E...

Another article from the Monticello classroom url:

http://classroom.monticello.org/teachers...

It was interesting to me that it was Alexander Hamilton who helped influence the presidential balloting impasse in favor of Jefferson who he considered the least dangerous man of the two.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Thanks, Bentley, for the list of Federalists and AntiFederalists....By the way, do I remember correctly that Jefferson was AntiFederalist? He somehow missed the answer.com list. "

Another thing I took away from that book was, Jefferson was the head of the Anti-Federalists, at least when he got back from Europe. He eventually became the President in power who defeated Adams and his Federalists. I guess now what I need to find out is, what was he doing when these papers started coming out? I can't imagine Jefferson being against the Constitution being ratified by his state.

And thanks, Bentley for the Monticello site.

What is very interesting is the comment, "thinking in national terms"- all of these men were working towards true independence. Strength in numbers was key at the time. The Federalists had their time and place and helped to shape a nation that could stand on its own. The very beginnings of balance of power, which then lead to the great creation of our system of government with executive, legislative and judicial branches. (Sound like a elementary school lesson, yet?)

But without the Federalists, the strength of the base of our nation would not have been as concrete.

So, why were the Federalist Papers written in the first place, and what major event ignited this discussion?

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but it was not a forgone conclusion by any means that it would get ratified. The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution.

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_...

And Shay's Rebellion was the major event which ignited this discussion.

The rebellion started on August 29, 1786 and by January 1787, over 1000 Shaysites were arrested. A militia that had been raised as a private army defeated an attack on the federal Springfield Armory by the main Shaysite force on February 3, 1787. There was a lack of an institutional response to the uprising, which energized calls to reevaluate the Articles of Confederation and gave strong impetus to the Philadelphia Convention which began in May 17, 1787. Shays's Rebellion produced fears that the Revolution’s democratic impulse had "gotten out of hand."

Ultimately, however, the uprising was the climax of a series of events of the 1780s that convinced a powerful group of Americans that the national government needed to be stronger so that it could create uniform economic policies and protect property owners from infringements on their rights by local majorities. Men like Charles Harding; helped to spread concepts created during Shays's Rebellion. These ideas stemmed from the fear that a private liberty, such as the secure enjoyment of property rights, could be threatened by public liberty- unrestrained power in the hands of the people. James Madison addressed this concept by stating that "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power."

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Re...

Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution was framed, so he was not part of the debate, although he supported a new constitution since the Articles were not working. And, Joe, he still was in Paris when the Federalist Papers were published. He didn't come back to America until 1789.

The whole debate was behind closed doors, so Jefferson didn't know anything about it until after the convention. Once he read it and wrote to Madison, he said basically, some good, some bad. Two bad things: President can be re-elected forever and no bill of rights.

Jefferson first advocated to pass it for 9 states, then tell the others to reject it until a bill of rights were added. However, he changed his mind and supported the passing of the Constitution after all. Madison had a tough fight in the VA Convention because word leaked out of Jefferson's initial thoughts.

Although he was not part of the active debate, I think Jefferson helped Madison confirm that a bill of rights was needed.

I think once Washington became President, it was now interpretation of the Constitution and Jefferson was more strict, although he pushed it further than he ever thought, but that is another discussion.

Hope this post helps clear some questions.

Ah, I think I'm starting to figure a few things out. I just spent a bit of time at wikipedia reading "Federalist" and "Federalist Party" and "Anti Federalist" and "Democratic-Republican Party".

I think a lot of my confusion about Jefferson is related to there being Federalists who supported the ratification of the Constitution, and the Federalist Party that Hamilton started. Even though there were a lot of people who were Federalists in both ways, I now see them as distinct.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. The Federalists who wrote The Federalist Papers are the ones who wanted the Constitution Ratified. The Anti-Federalists wanted to stay with the Articles of Confederation or something else that promoted stronger states than national government. The concession to the Anti-Federalists was the Bill of Rights. Jefferson wasn't around for any of this, except he also wanted the Bill of Rights.

The Federalist Party is after The Federalist Papers. It was started by Hamilton who wanted a strong national government, especially a national bank. Jefferson and Madison started the Democratic-Republican party to oppose the Federalist Party. They felt the national bank was unconstitutional. And there were lots of other issues the two parties disagreed on.

Anyway, that is why I was thinking of Jefferson as Anti-Federalist, when really he was Democratic-Republican against the Federalist Party. Jefferson wasn't an Anti-Federalist because he wasn't around when the Constitution was opposed.

Elizabeth,

I think that all parties were fairly disgusted with the Articles of Confederation for one reason or another. I think they all knew that something which was better was needed. But everyone had their own plan and mental design about what that was going to look like.

The Federalists like Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Washington, Franklin and Adams all wanted the constitution ratified and were for a stronger central government than what they had had under the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson even considered himself a Federalist under the old terminology..but he was not involved in the dog and pony show going on at this time because he was overseas.

I don't think so much that the Anti-Federalists wanted to stay with the Articles of Confederation because they had been hurt as well by the weaknesses inherent in that document. Remember some of the Sons of Liberty, etc. did not consider themselves Federalists either but had been burned by the A of C too.

I think the Anti-Federalists were more afraid of something similar to what happened to them under British rule happening again and that their individual rights and local needs might be swept away. They were dedicated to preserving their local interests and their personal rights and liberties. So the Bill of Rights was extremely important to them and they did not want their personal interests being ignored. They all wanted the country to succeed. Even maybe because the alternative was much much worse.

It is true that Jefferson was not around for any of this. But he did make mention that he had wanted a Bill of Rights. I think folks were Federalists before they were deemed the Federalist party started by Hamilton...it really was a set of beliefs.

Actually Madison wrote some of the Federalist papers so one can see that he possessed the Federalist philosophy. I think what makes it difficult is separating a belief system from what became a quasi political party at that time.

I actually think that Jefferson was really philosophically a Federalist first and then because of differences of opinion in terms of how to approach an alternative to the Articles of Confederation started down a different path so his differences in philosophy took on a different name.

Confusing I know.

Also, Bryan thank you very very much for your post.

Bentley

I think you are correct to a certain degree. Jefferson, who was in France during the drafting of the Constitution, remained informed of events as best he was able, and he did approve of the Constitution. He was a Federalist in that sense. However, except in the approval of the Constitution, he rarely found common cause with Hamilton. (One such instance was the election 1800 in which Hamilton urged the New York delegation to favor Jefferson over fellow-New Yorker Aaron Burr whom Hamilton abhorred. The grudge between Hamilton and Burr would end only when Burr actually killed Hamilton.)

Jefferson was a gentleman farmer who favored the expansion of US settlements. He thought the new Western lands would enable America to become a nation of homesteaders who would become farmers, mechanists, or artisans.

Jefferson saw the federal government as useful in creating a sense of national unity to transcend sectionalism. This becomes evident in Jefferson’s later years when, now more conservative than when drafting the Declaration of Independence, he is alarmed by the growing abolitionist movement in the Northern states.

I agree that state and local politicians often opposed the Constitution because they rightly assumed it would reduce their own powers. I cannot help but wonder if, in some states, this resistance was lessened by Hamilton’s proposal that the federal government assume the state’s war debts. Do you know when this idea first surfaced, and if it played any part in the Constitution’s eventual ratification?

Larch..excellent post. Yes...what occurred during the revolution played a critical role in the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, that was largely the reason that Washington and Franklin were considered Federalists.

FEDERALIST PAPER NUMBER ONE: (AUTHOR - HAMILTON):

Page 27:

"After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on 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."

I thought that this was a curious way to begin the general introduction.

"unequivocable experience"
"inefficacy of the subsisting federal government"

Hamilton said the importance was the very existence of the UNION as the first bullet point; the second dealt really with national security (safety and welfare); but the third bullet point was more than curious (the fate of an empire???) and (the most interesting in the world).

What did group members think about Hamilton's choice of words and their potential meaning and interpretation by others?

Regarding Alexander Hamilton:

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H...

American Revolution Home Page:

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/file...

Interesting ad hoc site:

http://www.alexanderhamilton.org/

Google book on Alexander Hamilton by Henry Cabot Lodge:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zvd0y8P...

Alexander Hamilton: The Man who Made Modern American (New York Historical Society website dedicated to a previous exhibition)

http://www.alexanderhamiltonexhibition.o...

US Department of Treasury biography:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history...

Hamilton project: University of Virginia:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/ham/hami...

From Revolution to Reconstruction:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/B/hamilton/ham...

Alexander Hamilton on the web:

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/hamilt...

Ad hoc site:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...

United States Congress bio:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/bio...

US History.org:

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/ser...

Brandywine Battlefield Historic Site:

http://www.ushistory.org/Brandywine/spec...

U-S- History.com - ad hoc site:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h367.ht...

PBS Special: Alexander Hamilton:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h367.ht...




Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton: America's Forgotten Founder: by Murray

http://books.google.com/books?id=ykioioK...

Hamilton seems to pick up steam:

Page 27 - No. 1 - General Introduction

"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."

Questions:

Who do you think Hamilton was referring to when he wrote - It has been frequently remarked" - by whom?

Do you think that Hamilton is being a bit pretentious when he claims that America must decide the question whether a good government can be established from reflection and choice? Why and/or why not?

Page 27:

"If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which 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."

Questions:

Was the fledgling country in a crisis at this point?

Did anybody else think that this sentence sounded a lot like Common Sense and Thomas Paine?

Was the country at a crossroads?

I think these comments reflect Hamilton's interest in creating a strong federal government. Hamilton supported a stronger government than than even most Federalists desired. He was instrumental in the creation of the Bank of the United States. Does anyone know if he ever suggested a national currency?

I believe that Hamilton was referring to the intense national debate over whether or not the Constitution should be adopted by the newspapers of his day. The constitution was not adopted by popular vote, but politicians still had to appease their constituencies. Newspapers were popular, and they usually took political stands. Imagine thousands of Fox News newspapers across the nation, each with a political agenda ranging from reactionary to extremely liberal. They had been discussing the new Constitution since the Framers had announced the creation of the document.

He was pretentious in tone, but that does not distract from the truth of his claim. You asked if the states were in crisis at this time. Indeed it was. During the war, the central government operated under the Articles of Confederation. The government could not tax the states enough to pay the soldiers in Washington's army at times. After the war, the government practically ceased to exist. The Congress of the Confederation had no explicit power to sign treaties or levy taxes. A new form of government was necessary, and Congress was the best compromise available. The Constitution was not perfect: it supported slavery (but never mentions the word until the 13th Amendment). States were allowed to limit suffrage, which they did, and women had no role in government.

The nation was at a crossroads. Had we continued under the Articles of Confederation, states would have become virtual nations in their own right. The West would have become a mass of disputed claims, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase, and states would have erected internal tariffs. Southern states would have sustained slavery -- it took a strong national government to eradicate slavery, and -- at the least -- African-Americans would still be treated with pre-Civil Rights disdain in the Southern states. The massive aid rendered the Allies in the two World Wars would not be forthcoming. It is even possible that the states may have warred on one another. One can only guess at the sorts of governments that might have evolved in certain states.

It sounds like Paine in that it is an appeal for change made to reason, and it points to destiny.

I think he did help establish the National Currency with the Mint Act of 1791 as Secretary of the Treasury (Hamilton).

Great posts Larch.

Mint Act of 1791:

http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publ...

Larche, On a side note, you bring up an interesting idea for an alternative-history book. What if the Articles of Confederation still stood? What would have happened in events like WWI where the USA significantly impacted the world? You point out that the southern states would have retained slavery. Perhaps, eventually, some external force might have changed that? Would the states have attacked each other similar to the wars and squabbles in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries? What an interesting chain of thoughts.

To tie this back to The Federalist Papers, we have so much to be grateful to the founding fathers for.

That would make an interesting alternative-history book, but it would require an author far more knowledgeable and skill than I to write it.

But you are correct -- we owe much to the Founding Fathers, but they were only human. Their failure to deal with the issue of slavery resulted in the Civil War.

Finally got my copy of The Federalist Papers this week, and have just finished reading the Introduction. (It is the Signet Classic edition, with Intro by Charles R. Kesler.)

Kesler made some interesting (to me) points in his intro. He says, "George Mason, for example, the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and one of the most distinguished delegates to the Federal Convention, refused to sign the document [the Constitution:]" (page ix). Mason thought our the Constitution would turn our country into a moderate Aristocracy. I wonder what he would think now? I wonder if everyone would remember Mason's name better if he had signed the Constitution?

I also hadn't realized that the Anti-Federalist papers began first, beginning Sept 27. The first Federalist paper was in newspapers Oct 27, 1787. I guess I was thinking the other way around, since the "anti" usually comes after whatever it is against. But the discussion actually started before either set of papers were written, along with the claiming of names.

Also, Kesler does say that at least some of the Anti-Federalists were pro-Articles of Confederation, "Still, the Constitution's opponents--now the defenders of the Articles of Confederation against the much stronger central government proffered in the Constitution..." (page x). Since there seemed to be general agreement that the AoC weren't working, I would guess those Anti-Federalists were arguing for the AoC because it seemed better than the Constitution.

The most surprising thing to me in the introduction was the fact that Hamilton didn't think the Constitution was perfect either. On the day he signed it, Hamilton said, "No man's ideas were more remote from the plan than [mine:] were known to be" (quote from page vii). And here he is promoting the Constitution and setting aside what he didn't like about it. I think that is a sign of an honest compromise, when you don't get what you idealized, but embrace what the group comes up with. I'm guessing what Hamilton wanted differently were things he worked for later, like the national bank.

I'd like to raise a question to think about when we get to later Federalist papers that deal with this issue. On page xxi, Kelser says, "The very design of these offices [i.e. leaders of the 3 branches:]--their powers, number, duration, and other constitutional characteristics--will help to attract 'fit characters' to them." Is that true now? Do we see people best fit for congress and president running for those offices?

Now I'm hoping to get to Federalist #1 in the next couple of days. :)

It seems to me that Hamilton is arguing forcefully for thoughtfulness, that he is asking people to set aside the screamers on both sides and rationally examine the issues. I was struck by the passage in which he criticizes both parties for trying "to increase the number of their convert by the loudness of their declamations and by the bitterness of their invective." One could read those words on an Op-Ed page today and find them just as applicable as they were 200 plus years ago.

BTW, I have always wanted to read the Federalist papers, I am excited by having this group as an ongoing incentive.

Just finished #1. Bentley, I think there is some pretentiousness here by Hamilton. At least that is what anyone of international consequence at the time would probably say. And yet history since then has shown him to be right--in many ways the choices made by Americans back then have set a standard and altered course for the world. Not that the American way is the only way to do it, but it shows that it can be done. In my opinion, the founding fathers knew that they were doing something great, significant, and lasting. And I think Hamilton was using this phrase to try to convey some of that to the people. At the time, pretentious. From a couple of centuries later, amazing foresight.

Rick, I think you make a good point that Hamilton wanted people to set aside the loudness, the forcefulness, because they are really not the best discriminators of truth. He also says that "we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists" (page 28). In other words, just because someone is a scoundrel doesn't mean everything he says is untrue, so don't judge the Constitution based on whether or not those advocating it have the purest motives. That has some interesting application to modern issues. :)

Good comments Elizabeth S. I do think that Hamilton's comments show more about Hamilton's thinking at that time. And Rick made a very good point about not judging the book by its cover. Something can be really great even though you are not too keen on its inventor.

I recently found this book while browsing for some material for my Sony ereader and thought everyone here might want to take a look. It appears like this book can help us a great deal in learning more about the Federalist Papers, so I ended up purchasing it and will be studying it a bit closer. It was even written by a Goodreads.com author, Michael Meyerson. But first I need to finish Federalist #2.

From the description:
Liberty's Blueprint offers an essential introduction to how the Federalist Papers were written, the philosophical thinking that shaped the Constitution, how the framers meant the various clauses to be understood, and why they are still vitally important today.

Joe,

That does look interesting. Wish I had time to join you in perusing it. For now, it is on my "eventually" list.

Joe wrote: "I recently found this book while browsing for some material for my Sony ereader and thought everyone here might want to take a look. It appears like this book can help us a great deal in learning m..."

That looks great Joe. By all means jump in with any and all points you glean from that book. I will look into it when I am back in the states in a few weeks time. Right now I consider myself lucky when I am able to be on.

Folks, here is the link for Federalist Paper #2 which is this week's reading (written by John Jay). The page numbers that I refer to are from the Signet addition however.

http://federali.st/2

FEDERALIST No. 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (John Jay)
October 26 - November 1 (page 31)

Joe, I sent an invitation to Michael Meyerson to join the discussion if he is so inclined.

Here is a link to some FAQs that Meyerson did regarding The Federalist Papers which may be helpful:

http://www.michaelmeyerson.com/faq.html

Here are some interesting articles that Meyerson cites:

http://www.michaelmeyerson.com/columns.h...

Here is the C-Span video with Meyerson discussing his book and The Federalist Papers (it is very well done and discusses among other things the purpose of these writings and why they are important):

The presentation was called "Liberties Blueprint" -

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/20323...

PART ONE - NOTES FROM LIBERTIES PRESENTATION CITED ABOVE:

The Liberties Blueprint presentation done by MEYERSON is quite interesting and answers a lot of introductory questions folks might have about The Federalist Papers.

Meyerson says that his book is really a book advertising the importance of reading another book "The Federalist Papers" in its entirety. He describes Madison and Hamilton as being somewhat of an odd couple; Hamilton (popular and handsome and socially savvy) and brilliant; while Madison was bleak, cold and somewhat sickly in appearance yet also quite brilliant. Hamilton was reckless whereas Madison was more a cautious personality. They came together to sell the idea and the verbiage of the Constitution. They wanted to appeal to reason; so they wrote at least four (4) articles a week for newspapers in order to present to the public what the Constitution was all about and why it was important to the American people that it get ratified.

Meyerson stated that the Constitution was sparse, short and complicated and left open all kinds of questions. Madison and Hamilton wanted to make sense of it for the public.

They wanted to answer some of the questions that ordinary citizens might have; 1) why do we separate powers, 2) why do we have checks and balances, 3) why do we have power for both the Federal and the State governments.

According to Meyerson, they had to explain why the constitution was uniquely American, was the legacy of the American Revolution, what it meant to be free and how the Constitution was actually going to protect them and their freedoms. Hamilton felt that it was important to explain to the people why all of the powers inherent in the Constitution fit in with why the colonists fought the Revolution in the first place.

Hamilton and Madison felt it was important to explain "how" the government was going to work and "what" power means. It was important for the common man to understand that the Constitution was written for imperfect beings. The question was...how do you write a Constitution then for imperfect beings who could misuse "power" itself?

Let us think about the following (Meyerson statement follows): "If the majority is united...the minority is at risk -- whether you are talking about ethnic minorities, religious minorities, racial minorities. You have no other ability; but to rely on the people..now that by itself would be pretty scary. They wanted to emphasize that democracy and freedom are not the same. Just because the majority rules does not mean that minorities will be protected, it in fact could mean they will be harmed. Meyerson pointed out that sometimes if you look at the elections around the world - oftentimes it looks like the "intolerant majority" rules.

The Founding Fathers knew that they had to depend upon the people - but that the country and the people needed extra precautions. Combining all three branches of government: legislative, judicial and executive could result in tyranny. The lawmaker could make the rules, the executive could arrest anybody they wanted to and the supreme judicial body could then automatically convict them. That is why every tyranny known to man has had all three combined in one. The Founding Fathers knew that they had to be separated to stop just that.

Thanks for the summary, Bentley, that really helps. I'm looking forward to reading all the Federalist Papers and really getting into what the Constitution means or meant to the people who wrote it.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Thanks for the summary, Bentley, that really helps. I'm looking forward to reading all the Federalist Papers and really getting into what the Constitution means or meant to the people who wrote it."

You are welcome..I have more notes and will post as I can get them assimilated. I think The Federalist Papers will be a good first step towards understanding better what the founding fathers had in mind and why.