The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics) (original 1788; edition 2003)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interestingly enough I've had many Constitutional Law professors who teach this 'canon' along with its counterpart (Anti-Federalist Papers) admit that the best way to study these arguments is not through these two texts. They seem to agree that Madison's Notes is a more accurate depiction of the actual arguments that led to the drafting and signing of the Constitution.

The arguments of Hamilton, Madison and Jay are just as relevant today as they were more than two hundred years ago. The authors of The Federalist Papers wanted to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. However, the authors of the Federalist papers also had a greater plan in mind. According to Federalist 1:
"It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force."
They present positive arguments for the ratification of the Constitution and, as Madison says in Paper No. 37, "They solicit the attention of those only who add to a sincere zeal for the happiness of their country,". What a thought and temperament, that zeal for happiness. One thing that impressed me on reading the papers was the classical education demonstrated by the authors with their articles filled with references to Cicero, Rome and Greece. Enlightenment thinkers were also evident with Montesquieu being a notable example. Certainly this is a book worth rereading with the current importance of the constitution in our political life. ( )

My reactions to reading this in 1992.

What can you say about a classic of political thought -- a dense work that took a long time to read? I’ll record a few surface impressions.

Madison has a more reasonable tone than the sometimes sarcastic Hamilton. Though he never names names, you can see why his personal invectives led to his death in the duel with Aaron Burr.

I found the methods of argument interesting. The authors, especially Hamilton, argue the initial assumptions of their opponents then go on to show how their arguments are without merit even if certain of their assumptions are accepted. Constantly, they emphasize that this is not a perfect government and that we should neither assume people are totally evil or totally trustworthy. Yet, in their proposal for a Republican government, they wisely choose to link a man’s ambition to his constituents’ welfare (and carefully arrange each type of government official to have their own power base) and have the Supreme Court and Senate reign in the wilder passions of the people.

I found it revealing that they expected the legislative branch to become dominant (and it has) and seemed, to my pretty ignorant eyes, to forsee the role the Supreme Court assumed after Maybury vs Madison (Justice Marshal was tutored in political philosophy by Madison). The new republic seemed to think excise taxes, duties, and property taxes would be the main supports.

Hamilton comes off as a vigorous supporter of a strong central government -- vigorous enough to motivate some fortunately not heeded arguments against the proposed Bill of Rights.

Hamilton seems particulary incensed that opponents of the Constitution would claim the right to trial by jury is eliminated. A great deal of space is taken by his rebuttal.

Madison’s early papers shows his historical knowledge and the inspirations for different features of the Constitution. I found the argument that command of the armed forces should be vested nationally because people wouldn’t trust it interesting. One can see the whole matter of loyalty to state throughout the work, a loyalty the authors saw as a check on national despotism. ( )

While borrowing heavily from the French physiocrats and philosophes, including Montesquieu ("Esprit de Lois") who first divided government functions into three branches and a Fourth Estate (Free Press) as a means of balancing power, the authors of the collected essays in The Federalist Papers transform the politics of meanness and faction into equilibrium and responsible action.

The main problem is how to avoid the paralysis of chaos and the injustice of tyranny. Without resorting to mere tirade, Hamilton, Jay and Madison gently essay the experience of history into a rationale for the draft Constitution which was being debated State by State. By cutting away the pretty pretentions which so many authors were forced to present in countries ruled by aristocrats, and by addressing the expressed concerns of people, the authors drew a compelling argument for checks and balances in government by c'est moi.

Comparing these essays to any collection of work by the Founders of any other Government -- from the Lycurgus Code, the empire of Marcus Aurelius, the pretentions of the Niceneans, the decrees of tyrants, the betrayals of Marx-Engels, the Soviet Supremes, the Little Red Book, to the chickens in every Pol Pot coming home to roost -- the Federalist Papers simply stand without equal to this day.

The only concern which seems slightly dated is the recurrent effort to be certain that "titles" and nobility in general were not given purchase or opportunity in the United States. The only concern which seems to be missing is the failure to recognize that Slavery was inconsistent with civic responsibility, by definition and as practiced.

The Papers are, by the way, unfamiliar to the "Tea Party". The whole point, the entire argument, is to place a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT into being. The authors are shouting out AGAINST the plutocrats and feudal lords who decried the slightest concession against their own absolute powers in their respective fiefdoms -- bleeding muddy ignorant and shackled. The Founders proof against the tyranny of "government" is that THIS entity is OURS. WE OWN this one.