1) The Federalist was an attempt to convince by reason (is that the peep of nitwitisms-Randian Objectivism I hear in the background?). 2) The Federalist's purpose was an attempt to articulate a national consensus and to express a generalized understanding of the concerns of the populace. 3) One cannot read into or understand the individual mind-sets of those convinced by The Federalist, by the *plain reasoning forth in The Federalist to vote for ratification. * thanx to M. Meyerson 4) Thousands of people invovled in debates arguing for or against ratification arrived at their decisions through idiosyncratic thought processes in secret. Dudes cannot read the minds of people who lived hundreds of years ago, no matter how silly and convoluted their argumnents. just sayin' --- Unlike the many of scholars and historians who belittle the role The Federalist played in ratification and becuase of it's obvious lack of effect in New York and it's understood role as a partisan set of arguments, I believe The Federalist has some value and insights into the mindsets of some of the people. But it is not really meant to be one man's arguments for ratification. HAmilton tried that before and it turned many people off. His personal attacks left a bitter taste in the mouths of many---which is why the need to print The Federalist under phoney names came bout. The generalized arguments contained in The Federalist are just that---generalized argumants. Not biblical commandments or words of law.