Product Description

This classic of American political theory, first published in 1788, defends the Constitution and explains the complexities of a constitutional government based on the inherent rights of man.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #61367 in Books
• Published on: 1987-11-03
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 528 pages

Amazon.com Review
"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.

From AudioFile
If I could expose my school-age children to only one audiobook series, the Audio Classics Series would be it. The approach is always the same: A skilled narrator lays out the subject in concise, nicely written phrases; actors interspersed play the parts of luminaries of the tale. Every actor in The Federalist Papers is believable, playing parts such as George Washington, Gouveneur Morris and Thomas Paine, among many others. These learning experiences are some of the best among audio adaptations. D.W. (c)AudioFile, Portland, Maine

About the Author
Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies in 1757, the illegitimate child of a Scottish merchant. He came to the American colonies to study at King’s College (now Columbia University), and became an early and ardent supporter of the Revolutionary cause. During the Revolutionary War he was aide-de-camp to George Washington and a member of the Continental Congress. He was a leading figure at the Constitutional Convention (1787) and a principal author of The Federalist Papers. At first Secretary of the Treasury he articulated a policy of protection for manufacturing interests, strong central government, and establishment of a national bank. After leaving the Cabinet, he practiced law in New York. His personal attacks hindered the political career of the volatile Aaron Burr, who finally challenged him to a duel in 1804. Hamilton was shot, and died of his wounds.

John Jay (1747-1829) was a conservative lawyer who became a leading patriot. He was a minister to Spain (1780-82), the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1789-95), and he negotiated the treaty of 1795 between the U.S. and Britain. His contributions to The Federalist Papers concern foreign affairs.

James Madison was born in 1751, the son of a Virginia planter. He worked for the Revolutionary cause as a member of the Continental Congress and the Virginia House of Delegates. The leader of deliberations at the Constitutional Convention, he fought for the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Through an ally of Hamilton on the Constitution he was a supporter of Jefferson’s agrarian policies. He was Jefferson’s Secretary of State (1801-9) and his successor as president (1809-17), but his presidency was marred by the unpopular War of 1812. Madison died in 1836

Customer Reviews

Spark Some Thought
"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

Excellent material, difficult to read
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!

Classical political work that was vital in ratification of the Constitution
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.