to
Main Storage
Patrick Wolf
November 13, 2000
(This is a book critique of "The Federalist Papers")
The Federalist Papers
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay
a.k.a. Publius
A book critique by Patrick Wolf
In 1776, the Continental Congress proposed the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the original Thirteen Colonies of America. It was a general government set into place that allowed for a loose confederation of relatively independent states and a weak central government. In order for the central government to get anything done, it needed to depend on the cooperation of the states, who were not so quick to pay much heed. When it came to major issues, there was no governmental energy to deal with these. To remedy this, in 1787, Congress recommended that the states send delegates to a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation to accommodate for these apparent flaws. After almost 4 months of revising and negotiating, the delegates decided to abandon the Articles of Confederation, and construct a brand new document for governing the nation. This new Constitution that was being discussed would allow for a strong central government, which could resolve such issues as taxation, foreign relation or maintaining a standing army. It would give government the means proportional to getting an end result accomplished. Another major theme of this new Constitution was to provide for three distinct branches of government that would include a series of checks and balances on each other. Inclusions were also made that would protect state’s rights, so as not to appear as though there is a massive governmental takeover that would resemble a monarchial state, that people of the time, knew all too well of. Taking the pseudonym, Publius, from Roman defenders of freedom Plutarch and Valerius, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay took up the cause to mobilize the public into supporting the proposed Constitution, in hopes of getting it ratified. Over the course of the next ten months (October 1787 – August 1788), an anonymous writer, known only as Publius, submitted his case for adoption of the new Constitution to the semiweekly Independent Journal in New York. This collection of 85 essays is known as, The Federalist Papers.
Performing a critique of The Federalist Papers is an interesting task to do. Mainly, first and foremost, this piece of historical literature is a critique on the already established government of the time, and how it needed to be changed. Of the 85 essays, called Federalists, the principal author, Alexander Hamilton, wrote over 50 of them. Next was James Madison, who wrote around 30. And lastly, John Jay wrote the remaining few. Although different sources claim higher or lower numbers for authorship, these figures are in the general area. Also, of these essays, Hamilton and Madison collaborated on 3 of them. As there are multiple writers, one could only imagine guessing that there would be multiple writing styles. I found Alexander Hamilton to be of an extremely intelligent and riveting nature, but at the same time somewhat long, drawn out, and extremely above an average reading level. After reading some of the Federalists that are attributed to him, I found myself going back over them in order to even comprehend what was being discussed. On the other hand, James Madison and John Jay had a tendency to write in a more common tone. The exception is on the Federalists that Hamilton and Madison both wrote together, where Hamilton seemed to be a bit more involved, and thus a bit more intellectual. Not that being intellectual is a bad thing, it just makes for a more difficult read. Especially in light of how these essays were brought to the attention of the public. The Independent Journal, was the New York newspaper that was the recipient of these writings. It would be my opinion that other newspapers in that state, or elsewhere, would have reprinted these essays for their own areas of circulation. Keeping that in mind, unless the only citizens that were reading these papers were highly educated or attended the best schools, the average person of that time would skip over them and read the local news section. I could be wrong. In this day and age, I doubt that a majority of people, although there would be some, would consider spending the next nine months reading a series of essays in the Kansas City Star, that proposed ratification of a new constitution. If they were appealing to the educated of the day, then they succeeded. If Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were appealing to the common blacksmith or farmer, I think they failed. Unless of course, the common blacksmith or farmer were extremely excited about the possibility of a new form of government, and wanted to know about the inherent failures presently contained within the concepts of the Articles of Confederation, and how the new one would alleviate the flawed areas of it. Perhaps the average fisherman back then would be interested in the complexities of a checks and balances system with the proposed Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, and would run to the local newsstand just to pick up the latest copy of the newspaper to read these arguments. Apparently, their plan on swaying the public opinion worked, as the proposed Constitution was ratified shortly thereafter.
As portions of this book are setting forth an argument based on the Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution, it seems to practically read like a legal case. Meaning, the goals are stated, the facts are presented, and the people decide the outcome. With that being said, the need for a strong central government, as opposed to a loose knit of individual states was a big emphasis in The Federalist Papers. In reading these, I noticed the authors used a number of hypothetical situations to make their point. For example, Hamilton points out certain “What if” scenarios. What if the land of Western America suddenly became common property of the Union? Which current states would get what portion of this new acquirement? What if one state gets irritated because it’s neighboring state receives a larger portion, would those states start fighting over it? What if these states start fortifying their borders? In terms of foreign affairs, what if Maine has an agreement with France to do business with them, but at the same time, Connecticut has a grudge against the French? Would the two states start a bickering about why the other should or should not trade with the French? What if a mini war sprang up between the two? With Massachusetts and New Hampshire located between the two warring states, would they not be drawn into this? What if bigger states, take over little states in the process? In order to settle incidents of this, Hamilton states in Federalist # 9, “A firm union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the states, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”
Another way the authors would go about making their case was to use historical civilizations, as well as current ones, to emphasize the point of having a strong central government. Hamilton and Madison together wrote Federalists # 18 through # 20, in which they looked to history for examples of failed confederacies. The examples given are ancient Greece, 9th century Germany, and 17th century Netherlands. Unless someone had good understanding on such obscurities, I think readers of the time would just skim over these three essays. Even though the writers went fairly in depth in discussing these societies, they did not apologize for dwelling on them. In their words, “Experience is the oracle of truth.”
If the ideas within the new constitution were to be made legitimate, the writers had to convince citizens at every possible juncture, that the old system needed to be completely done away with, and a new foundation had to be set up. When speaking of a strong union, little jabs were thrown at European countries, and especially England. Putting forth a patriotic edge to their ideas was essential, and I could find no better example of this, than in Federalist # 11, where Hamilton exclaims, “Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness!” If the colonies adopted the new Constitution, there would be a vindication of such European comments like, “…all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America – that even dogs cease to bark after breathing the air”.
The scope of The Federalist Papers is very broad. Whether they are making the case in Federalist # 25 for the definition of “raising an army and keeping it up”, or in the reasoning of citizens to be armed as stated in Federalist # 46, the writers make a point to sway the public to their side in these matters. The authors had an extremely hard sell on their hands, since the system of government being proposed would be something completely different than the current one in place. Even something that may seem a bit trivial at that point in America, will come to have major significance later in her history. The best example I could find of this comes from Federalist # 68, in which Hamilton explains how the President is not elected by a popular vote, but by a group of electors, by what we commonly know as the Electoral College.
In conclusion, I would recommend The Federalist Papers to anyone interested in gaining insight as to what the Founding Fathers of the country meant when writing the constitution. If you have a few weeks, a good dictionary, and the patience to read a chapter or two more than once, this is an excellent read. Consisting of 85 essays and more than 650 pages, it’s not exactly light reading. But in the end, you’ll be glad you did.
to
Main Storage