Schedule

Since I know nothing about what we're jumping into here, I have asked fellow member rbhardy3rd (you may refer to him as rb"I'm not bitter"hardy3rd") whose has taken a stab a reading the Federalist Papers in their entirety. Here is his comment. I really need feedback on this one.

Mary,

My plan in 2008 was to read The Federalist in its entirety. I only read 16/85 (about 19%). So, I'm clearly not great at making a schedule and sticking to it! There are 85 letters. If we read two a week, we're done in 42 and a half weeks, which gives us, like, nine and a half weeks to goof off or go on vacation or read other stuff. Or we can make this a multi-year project (who says one year has to be the basic unit?) and read one letter a week for 85 weeks. Personally, having struggled to study and do justice to just the first 16, I think a letter a week is more reasonable than to try to pack it all in in one year. It's dense stuff, and requires lots of thought and background reading.

Rob

Let me jump in to agree with Rob on the slower pace. I started the Federalist Papers a while ago, and it does require some background reading, too, to understand what is going on. (I think I bought the book I have after or during reading John Adams and/or Alexander Hamilton.)

Weren't you also suggesting reading the Anti-Federalist at the same time? If one is to read them together that would be a great deal to digest.

Lisa,

I am inclined to agree with you and Bob. Let's take the slow road.

You agree with my father? Because he was Bob. I'm not. Nor, for that matter, am I bitter.

Just because I confused you with your Dad is no reason to get "not bitter." ;-) It's a natural mistake by Rob comes from a family all of whom seemed to be named Robert. So there are Robert, Bob, Rob, Robbie, Bobby, Bert, and some less than nice names as well.

Since you're not bitter, I am going to let you set up the preliminary Reading Schedule for January in a separate thread. Such activity is known as delegation, kindness, etc.

For a schedule, what about looking at this chart: http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm

We could do one row a month, both the federalist and anti-federalist letters on the row. Maybe take two months for some of the rows with more in them (though, note, the Federalist letters make multiple appearances, so after reading the first time, it will often just be a reference back to past readings). And, since there are on-line links to all of them, no need to chase down books...

That sounds good. I take you mean to start with the row which includes the first of the Federalist Papers.

Yes.

#1> I really need feedback on this one.

Taking you at your word, I'd prefer a faster (1 year or so) rather than a slower (2 years or so) project*. Also, I see some small benefit in reading the papers in chronological sequence rather than clustered by content as suggested in #6, though I appreciate the link.

My (unreflective) preference would be to read the papers in order at a rate of two/week, with volunteers starting a new thread for each paper on (say) Monday and Thursday with a short precis of the contents for the rest of us to riff off--lacking responsibilities, I'm likely to drift off before long since with so few of us the conversation might not be very lively.

I won't get all grumpy if folks would rather read 1/week (or whatever), and I'd like urania1 to be bossy about setting a schedule.

* When exactly in 2012 is the world supposed to end? I'd like to finish up before then.

Edited because I totally messed up a footnote reference.

I don't care about the speed so long as it is in months rather than days, but also not too prolonged.

Like Steve I would prefer to read them in order using tables and cross references to inform those readings rather than determine them.

I have no reasons for that.

Robert

>10 Mr.Durick:

Okay. We'll do it that way.

I will post a schedule today. In the meantime, read the first two federalist papers for this week. If we read two a week taking into accont a few breaks, we should be finished in a year. Eighty-five Federalist papers, fifty-two weeks.

Okay. I've also given a once through to the Articles of Confederation and the first article of The Constitution; I intend to finish the latter without memorizing it. I have recently read Who Are We? and American Liberalism which both have some of their roots in The Federalist and may color some of my chat. If my Library of America Paine volume surfaces I'll probably compel myself to dip into it.

I can, by the way, recommend American Liberalism, despite faults and bias, for a serious look at talking points in US governance. I wish that the book would get people talking, but it won't be popular, and we are doomed.

One thing that I will watch is the presumption of the desire to make a good country in the founders, and I may compare that, if it exists, to the individual opportunism of today's politicians.

Robert

#13> "...the presumption of the desire to make a good country in the founders..."

I've been reflecting on that for a long time. Certainly there were many great men let's face it, they were all men among the Founders, but there are also great people among us now, though in our cynical age we don't recognize or acknowledge them.

But to say that during the Founding politicians were more interested in building a country than in pursuing their own interests while in our age the opposite applies requires, I think, that we ignore very different historical circumstances. Then, it was in the interests of the upper classes to secure for their commercial activities the protection of a Nation, so country-building was very much in their interests. Now, the nation is built, but politicians still spout the maxims of the
Founding to promote their own interests, and the interests of their class.

Then, as now, folks saw right through the run-of-the-mill politicians, but having had a couple hundred years to watch how they work, we tend to distruct the motives of every one of them.

>12 urania1: How are we going to read "The Anti-Federalist"? I have not really looked at it to see how it is set up.

>13 Mr.Durick:,14 "running at the brain" a bit here, but my memory of the biographies I have read of Hamilton, John Adams, Jefferson and Washington leads me to conclude that they were all to some degree opportunistic in that they had much at stake personally in the forming of the country. Reading so far in America's Constitution: A Biography has reminded me that the "creation" of the country took place over a period of more than ten years, and I am not sure that at the outset any of them thought they would be forming a country. I think that thought also developed over time. Of course, maybe some of the "founders" always knew they would form a country. I just don't know about it.

#15> How are we going to read "The Anti-Federalist"? I have not really looked at it to see how it is set up.

There isn't a canonical "Anti-Federalist", just various collections put together from different sources presenting counter-arguments to the Federalist. I spent some time yesterday trying to use the table linked to in #6 above to lay out a disciplined reading list, but the plan fell apart--the two versions I have of "The Anti-Federalist" are awful Kindle versions, very bad for research and that may have done me in. (I won't read anything lengthy on a computer screen.)

I did luck into Patrick Henry's speech on June 5th of Virginia's ratifying convention which identified many weaknesses of the constitution from the "Give me liberty, or give me death!" school, so that identified a lot of issues to watch out for. My plan now is to use my sick search skills to find counter-arguments on various issues raised in out text. I'll post good resources when I turn them up.

#15> Oh, and I agree that few, if any, Founders figured they were making a new country at first, say in 1774, but it's clear to me that at least the Federalist group surrounding Washington (would that be Washington's posse?) had that very much in mind when they walked into the Constitutional Convention. Madison went in with a prepared plan for a consolidated, continental Nation-state, and though his plan got modified beyond recognition in the deliberations, he walked out with at least that ultimate goal met.

I am going to try to remain aware of my Signet volume and watch the charts to see what might be relevant there to what I'm reading in the papers.

Robert

Robert, Is that the one "edited" by Ralph Ketcham? That is what I seem to have picked up. Based on Steve's comments, probably a good plan.

Lisa

The Anti-Federalist Papers... by Ralph Ketcham indeed.

Robert

I bought Signet volumes of both Federalist and anti-Federalist, based on them both seeming moderately scholarly and also being inexpensive. Ketcham is the editor of the anti-Federalist and Clifton Rossiter of the Federalist, with introduction/notes by Charles R. Kessler.

>21 rebeccanyc: Same here.

On page 27 of my Signet "Anti-Federalist" there is a handy chart that lists the corresponding federalist and anti-federalist letters.

The chart A_musing mentioned above is also extremely helpful: http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm.

I'm hit! Just linked over here from the 75rs What we are reading non-fiction page. I recently picked up a used copy of the Federalist Papers at the library, but it's such dry reading on its own, that I'm happy to stumble upon a group reading them slowly. Of course, I'm a week behind, but I'll jump in anyway.

I've been starting most of the threads with a summary of the next paper's contents. It's not terribly burdensome but does take some time and I've gotten very busy--I'm a freelancer and a freelancer never turns down work--and I can't keep up with our schedule of two/week.

So, please, someone pick up "the torch or randomness" and start a thread for #11, then #12 and so on. I'll jump back in when I can. Of course, we could probably yack about #10 for a long time.