The Federalist Papers (Penguin Classics) 
asked by benzdrives on November 15, 2006 8:33 AM
"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren ... should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." So wrote John Jay, one of the revolutionary authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing that if the United States was truly to be a single nation, its leaders would have to agree on universally binding rules of governance--in short, a constitution. In a brilliant set of essays, Jay and his colleagues Alexander Hamilton and James Madison explored in minute detail the implications of establishing a kind of rule that would engage as many citizens as possible and that would include a system of checks and balances. Their arguments proved successful in the end, and The Federalist Papers stand as key documents in the founding of the United States.
Reviews
0%
0%
"The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and oeconomy, have notwithstanding been productive of the signal advantage, of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation, which used to mark the progress of war, prior to their introduction." I assume this is a quote from the federalist papers. Nevertheless, I had some interesting thoughts from the passage and wish to expound.
Because a state's army is impregnable, or atleast its will, defense of freedom and welfare are not necessarily the cause(I derived that from the passage, and the rest will be questions which came to mind). How can someone hold an injurious intent towards freedom and to his or her nation's welfare while, at the same time, claiming to defend such things? Can people defend something for which they wish ill will towards? Maybe they can defend the nation but not the mentioned causes.
Brandon Williford
Tulsa, OK
Because a state's army is impregnable, or atleast its will, defense of freedom and welfare are not necessarily the cause(I derived that from the passage, and the rest will be questions which came to mind). How can someone hold an injurious intent towards freedom and to his or her nation's welfare while, at the same time, claiming to defend such things? Can people defend something for which they wish ill will towards? Maybe they can defend the nation but not the mentioned causes.
Brandon Williford
Tulsa, OK
reviewed by faithfulone on November 23, 2006 7:03 PM
0%
0%
I rate this book 5 stars because the content is so vital to understanding what our founding fathers were thinking as they tried to convince the Americans in New York that a "Foederal" government, rather than individual states or territories, was the best way to bring the new union together.
OK, now readability. Does anyone else have trouble understanding the writing style of the late 17th century? I appreciate that the book is true to the original newspaper articles, but sometimes my eyes glaze over and I lose the gist of what the author was trying to say. For example: "The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and oeconomy, have notwithstanding been productive of the signal advantage, of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation, which used to mark the progress of war, prior to their introduction." I think he's saying that a standing army will prevent foreign powers from easily invading your country. But I have to do this "translation" in my head as I read each sentence, so the reading really gets bogged down.
So, this work is not something that most people can just breeze through - it takes some thought and understanding of the culture and style of the time. If there is a modern-language translation available, I would buy that as a supplement, because the content definitely is worth learning!
OK, now readability. Does anyone else have trouble understanding the writing style of the late 17th century? I appreciate that the book is true to the original newspaper articles, but sometimes my eyes glaze over and I lose the gist of what the author was trying to say. For example: "The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and oeconomy, have notwithstanding been productive of the signal advantage, of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation, which used to mark the progress of war, prior to their introduction." I think he's saying that a standing army will prevent foreign powers from easily invading your country. But I have to do this "translation" in my head as I read each sentence, so the reading really gets bogged down.
So, this work is not something that most people can just breeze through - it takes some thought and understanding of the culture and style of the time. If there is a modern-language translation available, I would buy that as a supplement, because the content definitely is worth learning!
reviewed by mountaindew on November 25, 2006 2:52 AM
0%
0%
When Hamilton began the Federalist papers there were many anti- Federalists in the land urging against ratification of the Constitution. It was 1787, and Hamilton enlisted John Jay and James Madison to work with him on the papers. In the end there were eighty- five papers, five written by Jay, twenty- eight( most probably) by Madison and the rest by Hamilton.
The most influential of the papers were according to Wikipedia "number 10 calling for a large strong republic and including a discussion on factions, 51 explains the need for separation of powers. Federalist No. 84 is also notable for its opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights."
The Federalist Papers are written with great elegance and with a deep knowledge of the history of political forms. They are one of the many proofs we have of the special greatness of the founding fathers of the American Nation.
The most influential of the papers were according to Wikipedia "number 10 calling for a large strong republic and including a discussion on factions, 51 explains the need for separation of powers. Federalist No. 84 is also notable for its opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights."
The Federalist Papers are written with great elegance and with a deep knowledge of the history of political forms. They are one of the many proofs we have of the special greatness of the founding fathers of the American Nation.
reviewed by squeege on November 29, 2006 7:57 AM
0%
0%
You don't need to be told that the Federalist Papers are not for everyone, but for a niche audience of which I happen to be a member. And so, the qualifications: you need to have a pretty fluent command of the English language, and not just modern usage but also more archaic structure and vocabulary; you have to have a good grasp of history, at least a rough outline of it solidly in mind; you have to have a love for politics, political science and the Constitution.
If all of that is true of you, you'll probably enjoy reading this. At least, to a point. The Federalist Papers, written mainly by "Father of the Constitution" James Madison and "Shot by Aaron Burr/Closet-Monarchist" Alexander Hamilton, is a very lengthy defense of the then-proposed Constitution, point by point. And what I mean is, they will take items over which there could be seemingly no substantial debate and then write a series of three or four essays on that point. And so, it is possible that even the die-hard history/political science buff will be bored by the thirtieth page of the debate over whether standing armies should be allowed to be kept during peace time.
The most laugh-out-loud moment (and yeah, there are a few) is when the "Interstate Commerce clause" is dismissed in a slip of a paragraph, which is, of course, one of the most important and controversial passages to the modern reading of the Constitution, forming the basis for a good deal of our current legislation. Whatever one feels about our current "construction" of the Constitution, I think a fair reading of the literature will show that it is not the same construction as that of its authors.
Not laugh-out-loud at all, however, is the roaring silence on the subject of slavery. It does come up, from time to time, but the lack of debate on these matters (there are, maybe, 2-3 pages on the 3/5 compromise and a paragraph on the ending of the slave trade) proclaims the volatility of the subject matter, even 100 years before the Civil War. Madison wasn't looking to offend his audience, after all.
Of course, all of these debates are mostly moot (with a couple of exceptions) and so the Federalist Papers are largely a historical artifact... but there is something very telling about them. That is, how incredibly learned, intelligent and eloquent our Founding Fathers really were. They debate calling on historical antiquity, philosophies ancient and modern, then-current foreign political systems, the Constitutions of the several states and the Articles of Confederation. These people knew what they were doing and it all mattered to them, very much. It's kind of sobering to see with what care and deliberation they forged this Constitution, and then to compare it with the "guardians of the flame" today who can't even seem to agree on the meaning of terms like "liberty," "democracy," or, in the case of one former President, "is." When reading, you'll wish we had Madisons and Hamiltons today, or even politicians who bothered to read them... or, maybe we do, but the general level of care and education of our country today does not allow men such as those to rise. The Federalist Papers is an interesting insight into the incredibly well-thought-out origins of our country.
If all of that is true of you, you'll probably enjoy reading this. At least, to a point. The Federalist Papers, written mainly by "Father of the Constitution" James Madison and "Shot by Aaron Burr/Closet-Monarchist" Alexander Hamilton, is a very lengthy defense of the then-proposed Constitution, point by point. And what I mean is, they will take items over which there could be seemingly no substantial debate and then write a series of three or four essays on that point. And so, it is possible that even the die-hard history/political science buff will be bored by the thirtieth page of the debate over whether standing armies should be allowed to be kept during peace time.
The most laugh-out-loud moment (and yeah, there are a few) is when the "Interstate Commerce clause" is dismissed in a slip of a paragraph, which is, of course, one of the most important and controversial passages to the modern reading of the Constitution, forming the basis for a good deal of our current legislation. Whatever one feels about our current "construction" of the Constitution, I think a fair reading of the literature will show that it is not the same construction as that of its authors.
Not laugh-out-loud at all, however, is the roaring silence on the subject of slavery. It does come up, from time to time, but the lack of debate on these matters (there are, maybe, 2-3 pages on the 3/5 compromise and a paragraph on the ending of the slave trade) proclaims the volatility of the subject matter, even 100 years before the Civil War. Madison wasn't looking to offend his audience, after all.
Of course, all of these debates are mostly moot (with a couple of exceptions) and so the Federalist Papers are largely a historical artifact... but there is something very telling about them. That is, how incredibly learned, intelligent and eloquent our Founding Fathers really were. They debate calling on historical antiquity, philosophies ancient and modern, then-current foreign political systems, the Constitutions of the several states and the Articles of Confederation. These people knew what they were doing and it all mattered to them, very much. It's kind of sobering to see with what care and deliberation they forged this Constitution, and then to compare it with the "guardians of the flame" today who can't even seem to agree on the meaning of terms like "liberty," "democracy," or, in the case of one former President, "is." When reading, you'll wish we had Madisons and Hamiltons today, or even politicians who bothered to read them... or, maybe we do, but the general level of care and education of our country today does not allow men such as those to rise. The Federalist Papers is an interesting insight into the incredibly well-thought-out origins of our country.
reviewed by megafan on November 29, 2006 5:28 PM