SHORT VERSION OF REVIEW - If you want to cut through the bullshit you hear all day long from the media, from pundits, and all the other blowhards who say "blah blah blah" and really know what it was that the Founding Fathers "meant" when they wrote the Constitution, as well as gain a deeper understanding and overview of why the government does the things it does sometimes, read. This. Book. It will also, hopefully, give you a much more in-depth appreciation of how great our government is, despite the fact that sometimes it fucks up (at times fabulously), yet always seems to be able to get back on its feet. More in-depth look follows:For more than ten years I'd been putting off reading this book, but after finally buying it and putting it off a year or so more, I finally got around to reading it. The timing was especially motivating, it being an election year and all the concomitant babble on the media and so forth about the government, the laws, which inevitably reduces to what the Founding Fathers and the Constitution say, etc. If one is looking for a definitive source of "this is what they were thinking when they wrote our supreme law of the land", then these papers are it. However, remember that these papers are essentially arguments, arguments to the people as to why the Constitution should be ratified by them all. In it, they argue for a strong central government that supervises the member states. They argue the reasons why the people should ratify the new Constitution, and in the process not only address the benefits of having a central, united and strong central government, but they also point out and examine the flaws and failures of their current (at the time) weak form of government as defined by the Articles of Confederation.In the process of these arguments, they look at opposing arguments, arguments that are against the Constitution, covering such issues as taxation, raising and maintaining of an army, and congressional composition and representation. Not only do they examine such arguments but the papers go on to either explain how the arguments either do not apply to the Constitution due to its nature (e.g. how it is written) or how there are safeguards in the Constitution that prevent such abuses. Throughout the entire set of papers, there is a constant theme of tension: tension between the proposed federal government and the that of the states, tension between the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), and tension between the rights of the average citizen and the actions of the government (state or federal). This tension comes up in so many instances, but it also will often give way at times to common sense and compromise. The tension is often used to set up the debate or argument of the issue being discussed in order to suss out the benefits and defects of both sides of the issue, and then more often than not a solution is arrived at. One example is federal agents - they will often be the most highly qualified in the entire country, and will range all over the land, so the chance of them acting with favoritism towards their home state is minimal as they will quite often be in other states where they do not know anyone too well. This theme of tension is taken a step further by implying that such a tension will serve as a corrective measure of sorts, where if the government goes too far one way, then the people, being a good-spirited and educated bunch (at least then, and hopefully still now, but who knows with stuff like Jersey Shore), will exert their will and bring it back on track, even if in a general sense. Now, with all that said, before we continue, I'm going to qualify this review with a few terms.- I'm calling them papers instead of chapters, because originally they were published in sequence in the newspapers of the time. - Three writers involved: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. I'll refer to them as H, M, and J, respectively. 1.) This book can often be a bit difficult. Imagine you're trying to read watered down legalese written by a highly educated upper-crust society fellow and you have a general idea of how a good number of the papers read. Unsurprisingly, a good number of these difficult papers were written by Hamilton (H), who penned 51 of the 85 total. He was an economist, philosopher, lawyer, and general all-around renaissance man/genius/overachiever type. I've made the comparison to friends that some of the passages H writes are so difficult and extensive, with multiple subordinate clauses and other grammatical gymnastics that he gives Charles Dickens a run for his "one sentence takes up half a page" money. While I don't fault H for being overly eloquent, it does make a good part of the book a bit... challenging... to read. You really do have to "be present while reading" in order to grasp some of the concepts (grammatical and otherwise) that H lays out in his writings, otherwise the thought will slip out of your mental hands and you'll have to start the whole passage/paper over again (which is something I did, a lot, but then again I should've tried to read it in a library, not a noisy and distracting coffeeshop). 2.) The papers written by M and J are a bit more easy to digest and understand, but still nothing to take less seriously, as they can often be continuations of thoughts presented in previous papers that might have been written by one of the other authors. They thankfully do not do all the grammatical gymnastics that H does in his writings, but they are nonetheless strong and eloquent writers, especially considering that one of them is M, the "Father of the Constitution". 3.) Quite often, historical examples are cited, as are examples from other cultures and/or countries. The paper including the example usually does include a detailed explanation of the example in question in order to, among other things, explain why it is relevant to that paper's argument by deconstructing the example and looking at all the constituent parts and how they apply to the current argument being presented in the paper.While the explanation helps, if you're not up on your history (and they go all the way back to the ancient greeks at times), it might help at times to stop reading the paper, look up the historical point, and go back to the paper in question. It often gives a much deeper meaning and understanding to what the paper is arguing, and also a bit more insight as to where the writer was going with his argument. 4.) Do yourself a favor and go into this book without political preconceptions. Don't go into it thinking "I want to see how I can get the words of H or M to justify my democrat/republican/libertarian/green/other views." You will not only be disappointed, but you will be shortchanging yourself and doing yourself a disservice. Back then, they didn't have any of those concepts or ideas - the only two parties were "strong government" or "weak government". Mind you, "weak government" here as they mean it means weak in everything, as in weak in keeping member states compliant with agreed upon compacts and also weak in keeping and maintaining a standing army, to say nothing about being weak with regards to taxing and collecting said taxes in order to deal with some sort of national emergency. I mention this now because, as I said before, this is an election year, and the whole "weak government" argument has been thrown around by certain people - yet people who tend to espouse this view insist on maintaining a strong law enforcement presence and a super-strong military. According to the Papers, you either have it one way or the other. If the government is to be able to enforce the laws of the land and maintain an army for national defense and security (which pretty much everyone can agree on), then you gotta pay for it somehow. True, that was then and this is now, and I've just reduced a couple of centuries of growth and development as a nation to a simplistic argument, but the basic principle remains - a government that is strong enough to address some national needs should also be strong enough to address all national needs - even if "addressing them" is to give the job to the states. Why? Because, as H states in Paper 34, you never know what is going to happen and limiting the government in that way is a path to disaster. Ironically, there are a number of times that H will argue for the rights of the states, almost always in contrast to the power that the proposed federal government should hold. The papers indicate, in their course, that the federal government is something that should be strong enough to take care of national interests as well as help keep the peace between states in the event disputes arise. But he also goes on to insist that the states have their role as well, in governing the local citizenry that they are familiar with, and the argument is made that both have their place: the central federal government has the power and resources to address and handle national issues, whereas the states have the local familiarity and due celerity necessary to deal with local issues that may not warrant national attention but are critical and need to be dealt with nonetheless. In summary - reading the Federalist papers was a pain in the ass. It was long, often dry and a bit boring at times. I often found myself rereading the same paper two or three times over because the writing was so... rich that I had to stop and start over to make sure I was getting it right. Yet with that said, it was worth every minute spent, and I know I will do it again sometime in the future.Reading the Federalist Papers gave me a glimpse, however brief, into the thinking that went into the supreme foundational laws that all our other laws are based upon. It gave me an insight as to why things in my country are as they are today, and why some of the arguments taking place today are (or are not) wholly warranted, and why we, as a nation, need to be able to discuss them (instead of yelling and screaming). More importantly, when I see or hear something on the news that the federal government does, I now have a bit more of a sense of the possible reasoning behind it. It is in no way definite or iron-clad, but I think that for many people these days, when the government does things it can often seem a bit strange and/or unnecessary, even obstructionist or "meddling" - yet, in truth, the roots of so many of these arguments and tensions go back to a time when the Constitution was not the law of the land. Most of all, though, it left me with this impression: when people say that the U.S. is the "experiment in democracy", the honest truth of it is that we were, and still are. The Founders wrote the Constitution with as many provisions and safeguards and failsafes as they could think up and muster, drawing from their own experiences, the lessons of history, and using such virtues as common sense and compromise to make sure that it was a document that everyone could agree on. They also wanted to lay down a foundation for a government that would outlast them and maintain all that they had struggled to achieve. The fact that this experimental document has gone on to not only achieve revered status, but has also been looked at and imitated by other governments on our world... it makes me pause and realize just how amazing it is. But it took my reading of the Federalist Papers to really get a good, solid idea as to what went into making it, and what makes it today still the best damned document of governance that might exist (of course, I might be a little biased). While I know it sounds cliché, having read this book makes me a bit more proud to be an American, simply because I can cite the fact that it was men of learning, of knowledge, of rationality and reason, who were the ones to lay down the essential tenets and precepts that are my government today. It wasn't a "divine right of kings" or "trial by combat" that chose our first national leader, it was the local citizenry who used a framework of rules that really smart, intellectual men created through compromise, common sense, and a little bit of thinking ahead to the nation's possible future.
That I have not read this book before, that most of the people I know, including several lawyers, have never read the entire book, is an educational crime. I think it should be required reading in every high school.It is also very current. The issue of how strong a central government the US should have is still being debated daily. After reading this I think I come down a little on the side of the anti-federalists! I was surprised. But their worst predictions have come true. The federal government has grown in power beyond what even they imagined. Having just fought a war against an oppressive (British) governement I would have thought that they would have been more cautious. However, Hamilton grew up in the West Indies, I believe and I think that influenced his thinking. He seemed to want a government not so far from the British.But Madison was there to counter him, among others. I LOVE Madison. He feels much more "American" to me and what a brilliant mind. These were great philosophers. They were so well educated and understood all of the great ideas that had come before and created a country based on them. For the first time, a country was "created" based on ideas and principles. What a miracle. And yes, how exceptional America is.In the end I was reassured by the book. With all of the troubles, we have survived.Right now the nation seems to be in the Hamiltonian frame of mind. No fear of a huge and intrusive federal government. But thanks to the framers, mid term elections are on their way and things will hopefully swing us away from the direction in which things have been going.
What do You think about The Federalist Papers (2003)?
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.
—Michael
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.
—Christopher
I spent some part of the day yesterday reviewing my marked up copy of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton's eloquence makes the dry facts of political theory not only palatable, but delicious. Here is a sampling:"It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigour of government is essential to the security of liberty...." These noble words of caution are as essential in our day as they were in the precarious dawn of our government. Reading these papers reminds us of the debt we owe to the brilliant men who fashioned our constitution, not out of their own invention, but through dedicated effort at studying every form of government that had ever existed, and gleaning from the lessons of history those principles that would create the very best government imaginable. These essays provide glimpses into one of the minds responsible for that creation. Offered here are the pure principles themselves. Hamilton (and occasionally Jay as well) explains the reasoning behind every nuanced phrase in the constitution. It leaves one feeling grateful for their efforts on our behalf, and better informed about the strength of what has been given us.
—Paula
