What do you think?
Rate this book
Explaining America: The Federalist
Look out for a new book from Garry Wills, What The Qur'an Meant , coming fall 2017.
Now with a new introduction--award-winning historian Garry Wills's definitive analysis of the Federalist Papers In 1787 and 1788, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison published what remains perhaps the greatest example of political journalism in the English language--the Federalist Papers. Written to urge ratification of the Constitution, the eighty-five essays--trenchant in thought and graceful in expression--defended the Constitution not merely as a theoretical statement but as a practical instrument of rule. Now updated with a new introduction, Garry Wills's classic study subjects these essays to rigorous analysis, illuminating, as only he can, their significance in the development of the philosophy on which our government is based.
Now with a new introduction--award-winning historian Garry Wills's definitive analysis of the Federalist Papers In 1787 and 1788, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison published what remains perhaps the greatest example of political journalism in the English language--the Federalist Papers. Written to urge ratification of the Constitution, the eighty-five essays--trenchant in thought and graceful in expression--defended the Constitution not merely as a theoretical statement but as a practical instrument of rule. Now updated with a new introduction, Garry Wills's classic study subjects these essays to rigorous analysis, illuminating, as only he can, their significance in the development of the philosophy on which our government is based.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
3 people are currently reading
99 people want to read
About the author
Garry Wills
153 books250 followersGarry Wills is an American author, journalist, political philosopher, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 2, 2010
This is a curious book which suffers from the old problem of being neither fish nor fowl. Wills is essaying several tasks in this book. One is to offer a fresh interpretation of The Federalist. Another is to expand his analysis of the intellectual underpinnings of the American Revolution begun in his book about the Declaration of Indpendence, "Inventing America" (which I have not read). The third is to exculpate Madison and Hamilton from the criticism they have been subject to by modern commentators on The Federalist and the Constitution it was meant to vindicate.
The problem is that these tasks, especially the first and last, often are at cross purposes. It is never clear if Wills is offering a historical analysis from the perspective of 1788, a political analysis, or a modern commentary. If the purpose is to reassess The Federalist, then what does it matter what contemporary critics have to say about it? Yes, that criticism often sets the terms of debate, but by beginning there it also sets the terms for Wills' own analysis. Moreover, because he is starting from the assumption that he needs to vindicate Hamilton and (especially) Madison from modern critics, he loses sight of the need to vindicate them from critics of their own time. They were participating in an argument about the merits of ratifying the Constitution, not an argument with political scientists like Robert Dahl about whether or not that constitutional vision worked as designed.
Worst of all, Wills' interpretation of The Federalist's intellectual underpinnings meanders and lacks focus. It goes all over the place. He brings up Scottish moral sense theory (which he asserted in his book on it, much to critical consternation and incredulity, was the main source of the Declaration) as well as classical republicanism (which at the time he was writing was a major fixation with historians of the Revolution) without really delving into them. The figure of Hume hovers over the whole enterprise. Here, Wills follows the lead of Douglass Adair, who first identified Madison's profound debt to the Scots philosopher.
Wills makes The Federalist a product of the Enlightenment. This was absolutely so. But he goes awry by greatly mischaracterizing the Enlightenment. It was little concerned with virtue or "republican simplicity" (268). The Enlightenment did not look backward, but forward. It was concerned with the future. The past guided, but did not determine. Not once does Wills acknowledge Publius' profound awareness of the sheer novelty (and modernity) of the American experiment. It was new and meant to be. Wills presents The Federalist as the dying gasp of an old world, when in truth it was the first breath of a new one.
The problem is that these tasks, especially the first and last, often are at cross purposes. It is never clear if Wills is offering a historical analysis from the perspective of 1788, a political analysis, or a modern commentary. If the purpose is to reassess The Federalist, then what does it matter what contemporary critics have to say about it? Yes, that criticism often sets the terms of debate, but by beginning there it also sets the terms for Wills' own analysis. Moreover, because he is starting from the assumption that he needs to vindicate Hamilton and (especially) Madison from modern critics, he loses sight of the need to vindicate them from critics of their own time. They were participating in an argument about the merits of ratifying the Constitution, not an argument with political scientists like Robert Dahl about whether or not that constitutional vision worked as designed.
Worst of all, Wills' interpretation of The Federalist's intellectual underpinnings meanders and lacks focus. It goes all over the place. He brings up Scottish moral sense theory (which he asserted in his book on it, much to critical consternation and incredulity, was the main source of the Declaration) as well as classical republicanism (which at the time he was writing was a major fixation with historians of the Revolution) without really delving into them. The figure of Hume hovers over the whole enterprise. Here, Wills follows the lead of Douglass Adair, who first identified Madison's profound debt to the Scots philosopher.
Wills makes The Federalist a product of the Enlightenment. This was absolutely so. But he goes awry by greatly mischaracterizing the Enlightenment. It was little concerned with virtue or "republican simplicity" (268). The Enlightenment did not look backward, but forward. It was concerned with the future. The past guided, but did not determine. Not once does Wills acknowledge Publius' profound awareness of the sheer novelty (and modernity) of the American experiment. It was new and meant to be. Wills presents The Federalist as the dying gasp of an old world, when in truth it was the first breath of a new one.
March 14, 2017
This was very interesting, despite being written I think for people who have more exposure to constitutional law than I do. I had to read it slowly because it was very scholarly. I should read the original Federalist papers and then try this again. Wills' purpose seemed to be to give an idea of how Madison and Hamilton were thinking about the constitution at the time it was being ratified by the states, and to clear up what he felt were long-standing misunderstandings of some of what they were really saying about checks and balances and the role of elected representatives in the government.
Two things stood out as stuff I was able to understand with my limited background. First, he suggests that in giving the judiciary the power of reviewing and disallowing laws passed by the elected legislature, Madison was not mistrusting the elected representatives of the people, he was prioritizing the direct action of the people when they approved the constitution in the first place. This was the closest the people got to organizing the basis of government; any laws passed later by their representatives were one step removed, and had to be compared to what the people originally did.
Second - by drawing out the influences of 18th century political thinkers on Madison and Hamilton, he was able to highlight the idea of public virtue being necessary for a republic to work, where public virtue is defined as placing the common good about the preferences of a particular faction, majority or minority. Sadly I think we are seeing now that this has gone out the window, and I wonder if without some sense that we are all in this together, there will be any "this" to be in.
Two things stood out as stuff I was able to understand with my limited background. First, he suggests that in giving the judiciary the power of reviewing and disallowing laws passed by the elected legislature, Madison was not mistrusting the elected representatives of the people, he was prioritizing the direct action of the people when they approved the constitution in the first place. This was the closest the people got to organizing the basis of government; any laws passed later by their representatives were one step removed, and had to be compared to what the people originally did.
Second - by drawing out the influences of 18th century political thinkers on Madison and Hamilton, he was able to highlight the idea of public virtue being necessary for a republic to work, where public virtue is defined as placing the common good about the preferences of a particular faction, majority or minority. Sadly I think we are seeing now that this has gone out the window, and I wonder if without some sense that we are all in this together, there will be any "this" to be in.
April 8, 2020
Readers' alert! This is an interesting, yet beguiling and -- in many ways -- difficult book.
Much like he did in his earlier "Inventing America" -- his study of the thoughts behind and within the words of the Declaration of Independence -- Wills dives deeply into what Madison and Hamilton intended with their various chapters that, together with a small (in number, not importance) contribution by John Jay, comprise what we know as "The Federalist Papers."
His effort is important as so many factions today claim the Founders -- and their interpretation of the Founders' intentions -- as "their own."
While it is true that each man embraced a truly federal system -- one in which the states continue to exercise considerable authority -- they also firmly believed in the necessity of a strong national government, one that possessed sufficient powers to respond to the needs of ALL of the people.
Given how much of the argument about government -- that it is, for instance, the "problem" and not any kind of "solution" -- is truly corrupt and twisted, and how much civic discourse has sunk to the level of trash and muck, Will's emphasis on how much the Founders -- including Madison and Hamilton -- relied upon "public virtue" and the priority of the "common good of all" over "private interests" is extremely important.
"For Madison and Hamilton," he writes in chapter 22, "the only thing that should recommend a man to his political fellows is the union of public virtue with wisdom. These linked qualities make up a kind of refrain in The Federalist, and are the only grounds for holding republican office." Madison wrote, "A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained."
"In a republic," Montesquieu wrote, "loving democracy means loving the people."
NOTE: Not some of the people, as so many partisans argue today, but "the people" as a whole.
Wills opens his chapter 23 with these words: "If he distinguishing note of a republic is public virtue, which encourages all to participate in decisions for the common good, the evil to which it is most vulnerable must be faction, which reduces public discourse on the common good to mere squabbling among private interests."
From chapter 26: "The genius of the American people, we are repeatedly told by Publius [the pen name used by Madison, Hamilton and Jay in their published essays], is republican; and we know that a republic requires virtue, defined as regard for the common above the private good." For Madison, Will writes, "Representation is itself a sign of trust and surrender -- the agent, the delegate, is put in charge of a man's affairs. There is a commitment of the agent to seek his client's good; but in a scheme of republican virtue there is also a commission to he agent to seek the public good. The client authorities his agent to arbitrate between contending interests, including his own, for the general ('aggregate') and true ('permanent') interest of all."
Compare the functioning of Congress and so many state legislatures today with this observation from Will,: The purpose of elections is "the choosing of impartial adjudicators of the varying interest." He continues, "It went almost without saying, at a time when men professed republican virtue with unembarrassed pride, that one was not elected a 'stooge' for oneself, but a person of disinterested virtue -- the model was Washington -- who would consult the public good. The test for choice was simple; Was the candidate non factious? That is: Did he obviously, by profession backed up with conduct, look to the rights of all citizens and the aggregate interests of the community?"
For the Founders, the strength of a republic was "public virtue. If men do not want that quality represented, first and foremost, in their national councils, then they have ceased to be republicans and that form of government must fail."
The Founders' goal was "to keep legislators from being 'advocates and parties to the causes which they determine', to make the consider 'the good of the whole' instead of the 'immediate interests which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another', to prevent directly democracy from sacrificing 'the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual.'
It is sobering to read Wills and to recognize how far we have fallen from public virtue, the common good, and the election of wise leaders who seek to rise above faction. Have we, then, ceased to be a republican people? And, if so, what ghastly kind of nation have we become?
Much like he did in his earlier "Inventing America" -- his study of the thoughts behind and within the words of the Declaration of Independence -- Wills dives deeply into what Madison and Hamilton intended with their various chapters that, together with a small (in number, not importance) contribution by John Jay, comprise what we know as "The Federalist Papers."
His effort is important as so many factions today claim the Founders -- and their interpretation of the Founders' intentions -- as "their own."
While it is true that each man embraced a truly federal system -- one in which the states continue to exercise considerable authority -- they also firmly believed in the necessity of a strong national government, one that possessed sufficient powers to respond to the needs of ALL of the people.
Given how much of the argument about government -- that it is, for instance, the "problem" and not any kind of "solution" -- is truly corrupt and twisted, and how much civic discourse has sunk to the level of trash and muck, Will's emphasis on how much the Founders -- including Madison and Hamilton -- relied upon "public virtue" and the priority of the "common good of all" over "private interests" is extremely important.
"For Madison and Hamilton," he writes in chapter 22, "the only thing that should recommend a man to his political fellows is the union of public virtue with wisdom. These linked qualities make up a kind of refrain in The Federalist, and are the only grounds for holding republican office." Madison wrote, "A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained."
"In a republic," Montesquieu wrote, "loving democracy means loving the people."
NOTE: Not some of the people, as so many partisans argue today, but "the people" as a whole.
Wills opens his chapter 23 with these words: "If he distinguishing note of a republic is public virtue, which encourages all to participate in decisions for the common good, the evil to which it is most vulnerable must be faction, which reduces public discourse on the common good to mere squabbling among private interests."
From chapter 26: "The genius of the American people, we are repeatedly told by Publius [the pen name used by Madison, Hamilton and Jay in their published essays], is republican; and we know that a republic requires virtue, defined as regard for the common above the private good." For Madison, Will writes, "Representation is itself a sign of trust and surrender -- the agent, the delegate, is put in charge of a man's affairs. There is a commitment of the agent to seek his client's good; but in a scheme of republican virtue there is also a commission to he agent to seek the public good. The client authorities his agent to arbitrate between contending interests, including his own, for the general ('aggregate') and true ('permanent') interest of all."
Compare the functioning of Congress and so many state legislatures today with this observation from Will,: The purpose of elections is "the choosing of impartial adjudicators of the varying interest." He continues, "It went almost without saying, at a time when men professed republican virtue with unembarrassed pride, that one was not elected a 'stooge' for oneself, but a person of disinterested virtue -- the model was Washington -- who would consult the public good. The test for choice was simple; Was the candidate non factious? That is: Did he obviously, by profession backed up with conduct, look to the rights of all citizens and the aggregate interests of the community?"
For the Founders, the strength of a republic was "public virtue. If men do not want that quality represented, first and foremost, in their national councils, then they have ceased to be republicans and that form of government must fail."
The Founders' goal was "to keep legislators from being 'advocates and parties to the causes which they determine', to make the consider 'the good of the whole' instead of the 'immediate interests which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another', to prevent directly democracy from sacrificing 'the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual.'
It is sobering to read Wills and to recognize how far we have fallen from public virtue, the common good, and the election of wise leaders who seek to rise above faction. Have we, then, ceased to be a republican people? And, if so, what ghastly kind of nation have we become?
December 23, 2009
Today everything is reduced to a sound bite and that wasn't the case, fortunately, when The Federalist was being written. Our Constitution is this republic's fundamental document and Wills gives it due consideration. Of The Federalist authors, he rightly gives more focus to James Madison and his concepts. Wills is excellent at delineating the concepts and, if this is slow going, it is deservedly so.
Here is a sample so you can sense whether his analysis is something you would enjoy: "Nor should we assume too quickly that our government, in its evolution over two centuries, though it may conform with an amended Constitution, has the shape that Constitution envisaged. This does not mean that our government as a whole is unconstitutional, or anticonstitutional. But much of it may be extraconstitutional; may exist in ways that the Constitution's ratifiers did not have in mind; may have grown ;up outside the Constitution's purview....By assuming the identityu, or near-identity, of The Federalist, the Constitution, and our political system, we have encouraged a series of mental shortcuts and theoretical abbrevieations. We tend to read all threee things anachronistically, considering them outside their threee separate times, joining them in some abstract state of timeless accord and mutual explication..."
Here is a sample so you can sense whether his analysis is something you would enjoy: "Nor should we assume too quickly that our government, in its evolution over two centuries, though it may conform with an amended Constitution, has the shape that Constitution envisaged. This does not mean that our government as a whole is unconstitutional, or anticonstitutional. But much of it may be extraconstitutional; may exist in ways that the Constitution's ratifiers did not have in mind; may have grown ;up outside the Constitution's purview....By assuming the identityu, or near-identity, of The Federalist, the Constitution, and our political system, we have encouraged a series of mental shortcuts and theoretical abbrevieations. We tend to read all threee things anachronistically, considering them outside their threee separate times, joining them in some abstract state of timeless accord and mutual explication..."
April 5, 2008
Maybe not the most accessible reads, as from what I understand Wills' other works are, but this is an important book for understanding the context in which our nation came into being, and in which the Federalist was written.
Wills reviews the arguments made by a number of critics of both Madison and Hamilton, who claim that their writings under the pseudonym "Publius" contradict arguments made outside of the text. In this analysis, Wills correlates those seeming contradictions with the influences (historical and political) under which the authors were -- from high school until after the Constitution was adopted.
Often not mentioned in discussions about the Federalist is a review of the importance the Scottish Enlightenment played, in particular the work of Scottish political thinker David Hume.
This book is a must read for anyone who wants to thoroughly understand the Federalist and the origins of our nation's democratic government.
Wills reviews the arguments made by a number of critics of both Madison and Hamilton, who claim that their writings under the pseudonym "Publius" contradict arguments made outside of the text. In this analysis, Wills correlates those seeming contradictions with the influences (historical and political) under which the authors were -- from high school until after the Constitution was adopted.
Often not mentioned in discussions about the Federalist is a review of the importance the Scottish Enlightenment played, in particular the work of Scottish political thinker David Hume.
This book is a must read for anyone who wants to thoroughly understand the Federalist and the origins of our nation's democratic government.
April 27, 2008
Garry Wills is an amazing author. Here and in his companion volume, Inventing America, he lays out the thoughts and ideas underlying the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. A refreshing change from the dumb-downed pablum of the schools and the simplification of the Religious Right.
Read
August 14, 2009I am currently reviewing Wills, Explaining America: The Federalist. According to Wills the 10th amendment was instrumental in minimizing the Anti-Federalist proponents. The book reviews the various components of the Federalist papers and the ideologies that promoted the writing of Publius.
July 25, 2008
More great work from Mr. Wills. This time he takes on how the constitution was made. tremendous.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews