The Federalist Papers: A Revelation!

[PoliticalChic]

1. Now, if you went to government school, and never picked up a book on your own, you probably don't know the difference between Michelob and Michelangelo.....or between the Federalist Papers and Fedex.


But, those who have studied the Federalist probably did so within the context of the ratification of the Constitution. And came away believing that those 85 articles are hallowed, some kind of political scripture.

Were they responsible for the sentiment in the colonies at the time?

Oh, nay, nay!
In fact they were hardly politically significant at the time.





2. Actually, even in New York, where they were published, the articles didn't have much to do with ratification. And, remember, the Publius essays were pretty much unknown to anyone outside the range of New York papers.

a. Virginia, the wealthiest, and, arguably, most important of the 13 colonies, was the tenth state to ratify the Constitution, and its convention was already meeting when the final Federalist essay was first published.





3. It seems that not even in New York did the articles have a significant effect. When New York's convention met, near my beloved Vassar College, in Poughkeepsie, in 1788, ten states had already ratified!
The pressures on the Governor George Clinton-led Republicans, was
a) to join Rhode Island and North Carolina, and skip joining the Union, or
b) a warning from Alexander Hamilton that New York City would secede from the state and ratify on its own!

Even so...it was close: 27 to 30.
Kevin Gutzman, "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution."




The question: what was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

 

[Spoonman]

the federalist papers challenge most liberal interpretations of the bill of rights. of course they have to be discredited

 

[JakeStarkey]

Federalist papers aren't law, the Founders' opinions are not mandatory, and the Founders themselves were divided. Madison was for Big Government before he was against it.

 

[Picaro]

I don't know many who don't know the Constitution was put together by politicians who disagreed on nearly everything, and it's merely a flawed and imperfect compromise.

Citing the 'Founding Fathers' and those after them as evidence of support for some talking point other is an exercise in futility; they were politicians, inconsistent, and like politicians in every era there is little relation to what they said and what they did in real life.

 

[Moonglow]

you probably don't know the difference between Michelob and Michelangelo

Depends which one you grew up with....If Michelangelo wanted his name on the public's eye, he should have marketed a beer...

 

[Moonglow]

I don't know many who don't know the Constitution was put together by politicians who disagreed on nearly everything, and it's merely a flawed and imperfect compromise.

Citing the 'Founding Fathers' and those after them as evidence of support for some talking point other is an exercise in futility; they were politicians, inconsistent, and like politicians in every era there is little relation to what they said and what they did in real life.

Not to mention the duels from the FF's because they got along so well...

 

[Moonglow]

the federalist papers challenge most liberal interpretations of the bill of rights. of course they have to be discredited

It would be like trying to make laws by using philosophy of Aurelius.

 

[Moonglow]

But, those who have studied the Federalist probably did so within the context of the ratification of the Constitution. And came away believing that those 85 articles are hallowed, some kind of political scripture.

It was more like they plagiarized some of the Articles of Confederation and put a twist on them, since they were in a hurry...Did you see how fast the Constitution past into law?

 

[Moonglow]

The question: what was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

To argue philosophy....to aver philosophy and to convey philosophy...

 

[PoliticalChic]

the federalist papers challenge most liberal interpretations of the bill of rights. of course they have to be discredited

It would be like trying to make laws by using philosophy of Aurelius.

Would that be Marcus Aurelius ('Stand erect or be made to stand erect')....or the jellyfish Aurelius?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The question: what was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

To argue philosophy....to aver philosophy and to convey philosophy...

Wait....let me run up and get my da vinci code to figure out that post.....




Meanwhile....let's advance the theme of this thread:

The question: what was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

Was it to make sure of ratification....by clouding over the stated basis- federalism- and setting the stage for a quasi-monarchy???




4. Although called 'The Federalist,' implying the desire to have a government in which the states retain most sovereignty, and play a major role, the authors were those favoring a strong nation government, nationalists, and a monarchist, Hamilton, who was opposed to strong state sovereignty.

It should be said, that there was a lot of shifting, even from Madison, who originally supported the Virginia Plan of strong central government: he grew to support of the Constitution, as passed.

a. At times Madison, Jay and Hamilton describe the new government as federal, and at others, they make it 'national.'

At times they say that the states would retain a central role in the new government...but at other times they speak of broad grants of power to the central government.

5. In fact. based on the strange mixture of statements, one might believe that the nationalist/monarchist authors were attempting ...'obfuscation,' if you get my drift, based on a desire for ratification.

 

[Moonglow]

Jefferson took a Tea Party political philosophy but broke it when he became President with his political reality.
When Jefferson was in the VA. legislature , he wrote some of the most stringent of slave return and escape laws...

 

[regent]

The Federalist Papers were propaganda, a form of advertising. The Framers problem and maybe it was a saving grace, is that they creating a government for thirteen already established government, with their own Constitutions. Some believed the confederation was great but others believed the confederation had problems. So we had compromises galore, today we can't even compromise to pass simple laws.
I wonder what the Framers would have created if they were writing a document for the perfect government not trying to compromise for thirteen established governments?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jefferson took a Tea Party political philosophy but broke it when he became President with his political reality.
When Jefferson was in the VA. legislature , he wrote some of the most stringent of slave return and escape laws...

Links?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Federalist Papers....who's zoomin' who?


6. In Federalists 62 and 63, for example, Madison goes so far as to contradict his negative appraisal of the structure of the Senate that he wrote in correspondence with Jefferson. http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s22.html


a. "Madison's views, however, did not always prevail at the Convention. Of the seventy-one suggestions he proposed or supported, forty were voted down. He was disappointed that the Convention delegates rejected proportional representation for the Senate in favor of equal representation of the states (the Great Compromise). He considered this a breach of republican principles of representative government. He also opposed giving the selection of senators to state legislatures." James Madison and Executive Power

Sounds pretty much a federalist, there.....



b. In Federalist 39, Madison argues that the Constitution is both nationalist and federalist....."He then demonstrates that the government established by the proposed Constitution was in every respect republican in nature. After establishing this point, Madison answers the charges of the critics of the Constitution proving that the Constitution did not intend to establish what its opponents called a consolidated government. Even though the Constitution applied some national features it retained plenty of federal features to protect against consolidation." http://www.freedomformula.us/articles/federalist-39-paraphrase/


Again:
" Madison answers the charges of the critics of the Constitution proving that the Constitution did not intend to establish what its opponents called a consolidated government."

Think that's the case?


Any who don't regret the loss of sovereignty by the states, look closely and you will detect a step toward monarchy.
Doubt it?

Look what we have today.

 

[Picaro]

The question: what was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

To argue philosophy....to aver philosophy and to convey philosophy...

Yes. And then ignore all that when it came to furthering some personal agenda or other when the opportunities came along.

 

[jillian]

when were the federalist papers enacted into law?

hint: they weren't.

as pointed out above, they are an interesting idea to be discussed when dealing with political philosophy.

they have no more legitimacy than that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

when were the federalist papers enacted into law?

hint: they weren't.

as pointed out above, they are an interesting idea to be discussed when dealing with political philosophy.

they have no more legitimacy than that.

1. "when were the federalist papers enacted into law?"


Where did you see the suggestion that they were?




2. "as pointed out above, they are an interesting idea to be discussed when dealing with political philosophy.they have no more legitimacy than that"

Wow....what an astounding lack of understanding of American history you evince!

The Federalist Papers are, as Cornell University historian and political scientist Clinton Rossiter once said, "the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or is likely to be written, in the United States."


Perhaps you'd like to restate your post.

 

[regent]

when were the federalist papers enacted into law?

hint: they weren't.

as pointed out above, they are an interesting idea to be discussed when dealing with political philosophy.

they have no more legitimacy than that.

1. "when were the federalist papers enacted into law?"


Where did you see the suggestion that they were?




2. "as pointed out above, they are an interesting idea to be discussed when dealing with political philosophy.they have no more legitimacy than that"

Wow....what an astounding lack of understanding of American history you evince!

The Federalist Papers are, as Cornell University historian and political scientist Clinton Rossiter once said, "the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or is likely to be written, in the United States."


Perhaps you'd like to restate your post.

Was that perchance the same Clinton Rossiter that said of FDR, "Franklin Roosevelt had certainly left the Presidency a more splendid instrument of democracy than he found it."?

 

[PoliticalChic]

when were the federalist papers enacted into law?

hint: they weren't.

as pointed out above, they are an interesting idea to be discussed when dealing with political philosophy.

they have no more legitimacy than that.

1. "when were the federalist papers enacted into law?"


Where did you see the suggestion that they were?




2. "as pointed out above, they are an interesting idea to be discussed when dealing with political philosophy.they have no more legitimacy than that"

Wow....what an astounding lack of understanding of American history you evince!

The Federalist Papers are, as Cornell University historian and political scientist Clinton Rossiter once said, "the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or is likely to be written, in the United States."


Perhaps you'd like to restate your post.

Was that perchance the same Clinton Rossiter that said of FDR, "Franklin Roosevelt had certainly left the Presidency a more splendid instrument of democracy than he found it."?

I don't recall Rossiter making that statement....but it would not be surprising....after all, such is de rigueur for one in his position.


Now, if ever you require the unvarnished truth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.....come to moi....