Alexander Hamilton/James Madison/John Jay, The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, As Agreed Upon By the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787, New York 1788

2008 ◽  
pp. 149-152
Author(s):  
Manfred Brocker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
The Federalist

The Federalist Papers

2022 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
National Unity ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Federalist Papers

The Federalist is widely considered to be one of the most influential political writings in the early United States. Consisting of eighty-five essays in total, the first seventy-seven essays were originally published in New York newspapers between October 1787 and April 1788, and the final eight appeared in the first collected edition of The Federalist in 1788, although they were later republished in New York newspapers as well. The Federalist was written collectively by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to promote the ratification of the newly drafted Constitution. In keeping with the conventions of 18th-century public political debate, The Federalist was published under the pseudonym “Publius” to present its arguments to the public in anonymous terms, focusing attention on the content of the essays rather than the personal views or personalities of the authors. Although Hamilton, Madison, and Jay would not be formally identified as the authors of The Federalist until the publication of a notice in The Port-Folio on 14 November 1807, their collective authorship was widely known by the 1790s, and their reputations as respected statesmen and innovative political thinkers brought considerable attention and credibility to their arguments. Through the voice of Publius, The Federalist explains and defends the core principles and structure of the new government outlined within the Constitution, while also identifying the flaws and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. In doing so, The Federalist provides substantive critical and philosophical discussions of federal governance and its relationship to the principles of plural sovereignty, national unity, republican representation, citizenship, national security, commercial interests, and the separation of powers, all of which had a profound influence, not just on the ratification debates, but also on subsequent interpretations of constitutional language and authority, from the founding period to the present. While scholars have endlessly debated the political, historical, philosophical, literary, and cultural impact of The Federalist, these essays continue to serve as foundational texts for studying the politics and culture of the early United States, as well as contemporary interpretations and revisions of constitutional principles in legal, legislative, and cultural spheres.

scholarly journals Rule by the Few in the Federalist Papers: An Examination of the Aristocratic Preference of Publius

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl M. Felice
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
American People ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Federalist Papers

AbstractThe Federalist Papers are a set of eighty-five essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay during the founding era of the United States, with the purpose of persuading the states to adopt the Constitution as the replacement for the Articles of Confederation. The Papers were some of the most impressive political writings of the time, and are still cited frequently today by the United States Supreme Court. The arguments set forth in the Papers attempted to defend the Constitution's aristocratic characteristics against its opponents, the Anti-Federalists, while also attempting to normalize an anti-democratic, representative form of government in the minds of the American people. The clever advocacy and skillful rhetoric employed by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay led to the eventual ratification of the Constitution, and consequently the creation of the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet. This paper examines the differences between the traditional forms of government, the political philosophies of the Papers’ authors, the anti-democratic, aristocratic nature of the government proposed by the Constitution, and the arguments for and against its adoption, as articulated in the Papers and various other writings.

The Publian President in the Twenty-First Century

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanford Levinson
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
National Government ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
First Century ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Political Ambition ◽  
Institutional Power ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Security Challenges

Many Americans place special emphasis on the arguments presented by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, under the name “Publius,” in The Federalist. Often, these are presented in the context of debates about “constitutional interpretation,” that is, the best way to give meaning to disputed passages of the U.S. Constitution. And, often, these are linked with “originalist” approaches that give distinctive weight to the views expressed by Publius. One of the central themes of The Federalist is the necessity of creating a strong national government, with potentially “unlimited” powers, sufficient to meet the challenges, often described as “exigencies,” that will inevitably face the nation. Most obvious, of course, are what we would today describe as “national security” challenges. The question is not only the possession of potentially unlimited powers by the national government as an abstract (and complex) entity. Much of the discussion necessarily involves the degree to which one person, that is, the president, should instantiate this basically unlimited power. There is also a question of “constitutional design”: that is, if one recognizes the necessity for occasional “constitutional dictatorships,” does the United States Constitution present a desirable model for such a powerful executive, especially if we take Publius seriously with regard to the ubiquitous presence of political “ambition” attached to institutional power?

Madison v. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism and the Role of Public Opinion

2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
COLLEEN A. SHEEHAN
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Participatory Politics ◽  
Republican Government ◽  
Political Advantage

This article examines the causes of the dispute between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Though Hamilton initially believed that Madison's opposition to the Federalist administration was probably motivated by personal animosity and political advantage, in later years he concluded what Madison had long argued: the controversy between Republicans and Federalists stemmed from a difference of principle. For Madison, republicanism meant the recognition of the sovereignty of public opinion and the commitment to participatory politics. Hamilton advocated a more submissive role for the citizenry and a more independent status for the political elite. While Madison did not deny to political leaders and enlightened men a critical place in the formation of public opinion, he fought against Hamilton's thin version of public opinion as “confidence” in government. In 1791–92 Madison took the Republican lead in providing a philosophic defense for a tangible, active, and responsible role for the citizens of republican government.

The Federalist and Human Nature

1959 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Scanlan
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
Substantial Contribution ◽  
The Political ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Universal Applicability ◽  
Theory Of Human Nature

Students of American political theory find themselves in general agreement concerning the character and significance of their most celebrated document, The Federalist. Few deny that this series of essays in support of the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay represents a substantial contribution to the literature of political theory. The nature of the contribution is also well established. The Federalist, it is agreed, is a skillful exposition of the principles of constitutional republicanism — an exposition not haphazard or fanciful, but controlled by constant reference to the capacities and limitations of the political animal. The latter point is often emphasized; Benjamin F. Wright states: “The aspect of The Federalist which is of universal applicability is … its recognition of the importance of human nature in politics, togetherwith its remarkably penetrating analysis of the motives and the behavior of men in a free society.” x Finally, there is agreement on the general outlines of this theory of human nature. The authors of The Federalist, it is said, were decidedly “realistic,” brooking no illusions of the inherent goodness or rationality of man, but holding firm to “a conception of human corruptibility.” 2 The adjective most often employed is “pessimistic.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document