The Federalist Papers

by George H. Smith, Wendy McElroy

The U.S. Constitution was approved by the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787. It was to become law only if it was ratified by nine of the thirteen states. New York was a key state, but it contained strong forces opposing the Constitution. A series of eighty-five letters appeared in New York City newspapers between October, 1787 and August, 1788 urging support for the Constitution. These letters remain the first and most authoritative commentary on the American concept of federal government.

Later known as The Federalist Papers, they were published under the pseudonym 'Publius', although written by Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. This presentation explores the major arguments contained in The Federalist Papers and contrasts them with the views of the Anti-Federalists.

Genres: History, Politics, Audiobook, American History

Audio CD

First published May 1, 2012

About the author

George Hamilton Smith was an American author, editor, educator, and speaker, known for his writings on atheism and libertarianism.

Reviews

[Mintwitch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Civility has always been a goal in political discourse, but it's reassuring to know that our "forefathers" were no better at achieving that goal than modern politicians. The Federalist Papers includes commentary and letters, often scathing, between the men and women who wrote and debated the Constitution. Ad hominem attacks abound, as do straw men, and rabble-rousing. Sarah Palin would have been right at home among the frothing fear-mongers of the 18th century anti-Federalist movement, although ultimately her "side" lost. Good thing, too, if one is fond of having one's States United.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is getting more difficult to find impartial accounting of historical documents, people and events. There are several indicators, like research and reference material used, but the highest display is an equal inclusion of both positive and negative. George Smith and Wendy McElroy’s ‘Giants of Political Thought: The Federalist Papers’ does not evaluate the document in minute detail, but gives a historical perspective of the time. Those that point to The Constitution and denounce taxation will find that The Constitution’s reason for being was all about the ability to tax. The argument for a Republic over a Democracy is also addressed. There are other things that I personally found surprising, like Hamilton’s disregard for his fellow citizens, and that his want for a centralized power in America was so great that he suggested that the President appoint Governors, and have the ability to veto state laws. Over all an interesting introduction to The Federalist Papers, in historical perspective.

[James Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was an unabridged edition of the 85 articles known as the Federalist Papers. As it turns out, it was a very entertaining summary (with excerpts) of the articles; as well as responses from the anti-Federalists of the time.

[Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

An eye opening overview of “The Federalist Papers” and a unbiased look at the views and opinions of the men who wrote it. It documents the thoughts of those men and women who agreed and disagreed with these papers and the writers of it. I encourage you to get the audiobook, it was easy to follow along with and I found it entertaining as well.

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked the plain way that the Federalist Papers are presented. I am not an expert, so I am trusting that the author knows what he is doing and is giving me the most balanced presentation. I didn't catch him in any mistakes. It was helpful to me.

I am likely to listen to this audiobook again.

[Stef · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audiobook. Concise review of activities related to development of the Constitution with emphasis and excerpts from the Federalist Papers. The cartoon-y sneering interpretation applied to some of the quotes was a distractor.

[Bob · Rating 1 out of 5]

Too biased to be a useful read.

[bup · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's tough to get in the mindset of someone in the 1780's who really had no idea if this new government blueprint was going to more effectively administrate, while maintaining the civil liberties they had fought and some died for, or if it was leading straight back into a monarchy with a different name. That's where I think you need to be to stay in this. I couldn't stay there through the whole thing, and parts of it are pretty dry.

Nevertheless, I'm glad I did get through the whole thing. There are many good arguments and explanations for why this constitution was needed, and what the different thoughts were in the different specifics within it. For instance, why is it that the electoral college is an ad hoc body, which can contain no members of the house or senate? It's to help ensure the separation of the legislative and executive branches. Why does the president get to name supreme court judges, and the senate only get to confirm or deny them? It's because if the president picks someone unqualified, he looks like a jerk and they won't get picked. If the senate rejects someone qualified because they don't like the politics, they look like jerks, and besides, the president gets to pick the next appointee anyway. It was an attempt to de-politicize the process. And it's remarkable that they saw it working the way the process really works, since it hadn't been ratified when they were writing.

Plus, bonus - do you have one guy at work who you've pegged as the 'most likely to come in one day and go postal'? Well, that guy at my office told me he knew the founding fathers would have been against income tax because he'd read The Federalist Papers. Well, now, so have I. And there's nothing like that in there. There are a bunch of essays toward the beginning arguing that the national government needs the teeth to levy taxes, because it's going to have responsibilities, and that they foresaw tariffs and sales taxes. But there's absolutely nothing about how this government should never tax income. It would have been unwieldy at the time, to be sure, but they are absolutely silent on the issue. I don't see anything unconstitutional in it anyway. Now I'm his number one target on 'postal day,' for sure.

[Withm]

Highly abridged with insipid commentary and even worse narration. Don't bother with this audio version. Now I am going to read the real version.

[Chris Hokanson · Rating 2 out of 5]

The content is acceptable as an introduction to the Federalist Papers, but the presentation was terrible. The narrator of the audiobook attempted voices - including a grating British accent for Hamilton - and failed miserably.

[Tavis Long · Rating 4 out of 5]

This a documentary of the Federalist Papers as opposed to the actual papers. Great formation of the historical context.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gives me hope for our country.