Warning: This review's gonna be a long one. I started reading The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in early December of 2007. First I read five essays at a time, then they got longer and I dropped to three at a time. Finally, the last several were so long that I wound up reading one a day. The Federalist Papers was (were?) not always fun reading. But I did dog-ear lots and lots of pages.

It's now November 2008, and I'm finally getting around to writing this review, although I feel compelled to admit that I'm not doing so because of any need to get the review written. I'm doing so because the subject ties in with a one-act play I'm working on. Now for those dog-eared pages.

1) In No. 4 John Jay discusses why a federal government will better protect the people than individual states could. He lays out reasons to go to war AND reasons not to. In the not-to section he writes, "… absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects purely personal, such as … revenge for personal affronts … support their particular families or partisans." (page 40) Words drift through my mind. Haliburton. Or a paraphrase: after all, he's the man who tried to kill my daddy. I guess if one is going to consider the Constitution a "damned piece of paper, The Federalist Papers don't stand a chance in hell.

2) One reason I read The Federalist Papers was Senator Hatrack's frequent cry that those of a liberal bent didn't understand why the federal government came into being, so I kept a running list. Protection, mentioned above, was one reason. No. 11 by Hamilton presents reasons why uniting the states will work better for trade. So protection, then trade.

3) In No. 12 Hamilton adds taxes earned on imports will be larger and benefit the whole country more than taxing imports state by state. I find myself amazed at the business and practical angles that appeared as the noble "experiment" of democracy began.

4) All right, I concede some ground to Senator Hatrack. Madison, in No. 14, does try to sell the idea of federalism by claiming that the federal government will limit itself to only a few particular legislative areas and everything else will be left to the states. Sad to say, the only argument I can make for things being different now is a rather weak analogy. Anyone know of any 200+-year-old marriages where all the vows, promises and plans of things to do haven't changed from what was said in the proposal or wedding ceremony? OK, it's weak—but certainly realistic.

5) In No.23 Hamilton gives what, at least IMHO, is a pretty good statement expressing the goals of the federal government as they were then seen. "The principle purposes to be answered by our union are these—the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convolutions as well as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations, and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." (page 149) Again, looking at those words, I can understand how historical "purists" might support such a limited range of power, but I have to wonder: If such a merger were to be drawn up today, wouldn't the duties be much expanded?

6) Hamilton in No. 26: " … the state legislatures … will be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government …" (page 168) Hummm. States' rights. I find it interesting that during the semi-politically-aware part of my life the "states' rights" cry has only been used as a code word for "keep the African-Americans in their place." Is it a part of other issues? Of course I'm all for the federal government taking part in civil rights, but then I'm a 20th/21st century citizen. And I'm finding a lot of times when states are reassured that their rights, except those listed above, will remain with the states: Hamilton again in No 32, Hamilton in No. 34, Madison in No. 41, Madison in No. 43, and Madison in No. 45 (specific example: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and definite. Those which are to remain with the State governments are many and indefinite." (page 289).

7) In No. 34 Hamilton also mentions that the federal government rather than the states will be responsible for debt incurred by war. Interesting. If the states had not signed on, today would only the red states be fighting in any paying for the Iraq War? Or maybe just New York, DC and Pennsylvania?

8) "… we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on a government that derives all its powers either directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period of time, or during good behavior. (page 237) (emphasis mine) In some ways, we certainly have drifted. Can we all say "Senator Stevens from Alaska"?

9) I found it interesting that the dangers of and problems inherent in slavery thread themselves through The Federalist Papers. In No. 42 Madison writes, "It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these United States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. (pages 262-263) I wanted to send a warning: Look out, guys. It's not gonna be that easy.

10) Commerce justifies the construction of roads and laws of bankruptcy falling under the federal government in No. 42. So, we've all heard government of the people, by the people and for the people. Even from the very beginning should the phrase have been of the people, by the people and for business?

11) In No. 51, Madison writes, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the government; and in the next place control itself." (page 319) The first seems to have been achieved, at least most of the time. The second? Still-having-trouble-there is an understatement.

12) Madison, again, in No. 54: "Government is instituted no less for the protection of property than of the persons of individuals." (page 336) My, haven't we done well in remembering that! Kelo v New London anyone?

13) Interesting.
Quote
In proportion as the United States assume a national form and a national character, so will the good of the whole be more and more an object of attention, and the government must be a weak one indeed if it should forget that the good of the whole can only be promoted by advancing the good of each of the parts or members which compose the whole. It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; and, having no private distinct from that of the nation, they will be under no temptations to neglect the latter.

As to corruption, the case is not supportable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such expressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained." (pages 393-394)
Hamilton adds that if it did happen, the treaty would be nullified. From a twenty-first century perspective: I dunno. Guess the founding fathers hadn't seen in human behavior
what we've seen today.

14) In No. 68 Hamilton talks about the election of a president through the electoral college and how the process will result in a man much more qualified than, say, a governor of a single state. "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of the President of the United States." (page 412) So, founding fathers, has that worked out as you expected?

15) Supreme Court talk by Hamilton in No.74: "… the judges … by being often associated with the executive, … might be induced to embark too far in the political views of that magistrate, and thus a dangerous combination might by degrees be cemented between the executive and judicial departments. … It is peculiarly dangerous to place them in a situation to be either corrupted by the executive." (page 445) Say, Mr. Hamilton, I think you guys could have worked a little harder on this one. Or: Houston, I think we have a problem.

16) And on the President as he decides on who is to be nominated as a judge in No. 76, also by Hamilton: "He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merits than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, …" (page 456) Any minute now I'll stop laughing long enough to ask, "Can anyone say Harriet Miers?"

17) No. 78, again Hamilton: "According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior … (page 463) (emphasis his) I'm not sure judges who receive gifts and go on hunting trips with members of the executive branch qualify. But these days such behavior sure doesn't appear to have an effect.

18) Also No.78: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of a people are superior to the people themselves …" (page 466) Every elected official and every appointed judges needs to be required to read No. 78 and take a test covering its contents.

Two final comments:

1) As I've probably stated before, I love looking at specifics in how language is used and how such usage reflects society. All through The Federalist Papers the phrase "the United States" uses the plural form of a verb—the United States have, for example. Now it doesn't. "The United States has" is proper. Guess the States have, indeed, become United. When do you think the change occurred?

2) I now feel compelled to thank Doug Thompson for starting this site and all you really smart and well-read people who hang out here—whether I agree with your opinions or not. If anyone had ever told me that in my sixties, I'd pick up and willingly read The Federalist Papers, I'd have laughed in his/her face. But I did, and I'm glad I did. So, thank you all.

Currently reading: Best American Mystery Stories edited by Lee Child and Otto Penzler. AARGH!