Extending the Sphere

This chapter traces the development of early American grand strategy by examining the context in which the Federalist Papers were written, drawing out the grand strategy for America's rise to power as articulated by its authors, and evaluating the impact of, and departure from, those ideas on subsequent American statecraft. In doing so, it makes several arguments. First, there was a coherent set of ideas guiding American grand strategy from the outset, even as those ideas evolved over time. Second, the Federalist Papers are usually read as a defense of the United States Constitution and in a largely domestic political context for what they have to say about the structure of the government, the powers and limitations of its component parts, and the nature of federalism. But, even by a numerical count, it is clear that the requirements of national security played a dominant role in the minds of the drafters. Third, grand strategy, conceived in this manner, can be understood as the integration of foreign policy and domestic developments; politics and the economy play as much a part in grand strategy as do diplomacy and military force. Finally, evaluation of a grand strategy entails charting its successes and failures, consistencies and inconsistencies, internal tensions and unintended consequences.

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

The 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.

Print Culture and Distribution

This chapter analyses how the essays that made up the Federalist Papers were distributed and the extent of their circulation in 1787–8. It examines the contingent nature of early American transportation infrastructure within the context of print circulation. Because of the many hazards in transporting newspapers, Publius—the pseudonym under which James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay published their essays—was not a continentwide spokesman for the entirety of the Federalist cause during the ratification debates, but rather a local phenomenon, whose provincial life was limited by countless contingencies. By examining the circulation of the Federalist Papers, this chapter helps clarify the meaning of the term ‘print culture’ and underscores the importance of material culture to the history of ideas.

Editor's Note: The Sports Gambling (anti) Federalist Papers

The foundation for this special issue was laid when the U.S. Supreme Court announced on May 14, 2018, that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) violated the anti-commandeering principle contained within the Tenth Amendment. The decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association opened the door for states around the country to begin legalizing sports wagering for the first time in more than 25 years. The response to this newfound opportunity has been met with enthusiasm, with more than 15 states passing legislation to legalize sports gambling of various types within their borders in just over two years. The excitement over sports betting has not gone unnoticed by Congress, which, in September 2018, held a hearing titled “Post-PASPA: An Examination of Sports Betting in America.” The hearing sparked debate over what role the federal government should have in a new world where sports betting could be regulated across the country, as opposed to being confined largely to Nevada.

Book Review | George Will’s Conservatism and Democracy in Crisis

Americans typically view the United States as a democracy and are rightly proud of that. Of course, as those of a more precise nature, along with smug college students enrolled in introductory American government classes, are quick to point out, the United States is technically a republic. This is a bit too clever by half since James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, defined a republic the way most people think of a democracy—a system of representative government with elections: “[The]… difference between a Democracy and a Republic are, first the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” What the framers thought of as democracy is today referred to as direct democracy, the belief that citizens should have more direct control over governing. The Athenian assembly was what the framers, Madison in particular, saw as the paragon of direct democracy—and as quite dangerous. While direct democracy has its champions, most Americans equate democracy with electing officials to do the business of government.