What do you think?
Rate this book
The Federalist Papers: The Original 1788 Edition
The Federalist Papers were composed of essays written by three of the Constitution's framers and ratifiers: Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury; John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States; and James Madison, father of the Constitution, author of the Bill of Rights, and fourth President of the United States. The series was published anonymously under the pen name "Publius," in New York newspapers during the years 1787 and 1788 to persuade undecided New York state voters to ratify the new Constitution of the United States.
Considered a keystone of American democracy, some of the more famous articles dealt with:
Dangers from foreign arms and influence; dangers from dissensions between the states.
The Union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection.
The need for a federal government able to raise revenues through taxation.
The power of Congress to regulate the election of members; the creation of an electoral college.
The power of the Senate to sit as a court for Impeachments; the objectives and powers of the judiciary.
An enduring classic of political philosophy and a milestone in political science, Thomas Jefferson hailed The Federalist Papers as the best commentary ever written about the principles of government.
Considered a keystone of American democracy, some of the more famous articles dealt with:
Dangers from foreign arms and influence; dangers from dissensions between the states.
The Union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection.
The need for a federal government able to raise revenues through taxation.
The power of Congress to regulate the election of members; the creation of an electoral college.
The power of the Senate to sit as a court for Impeachments; the objectives and powers of the judiciary.
An enduring classic of political philosophy and a milestone in political science, Thomas Jefferson hailed The Federalist Papers as the best commentary ever written about the principles of government.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
639 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 13, 2022
559 people are currently reading
41 people want to read
About the author
Alexander Hamilton
1,067 books969 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him.
One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.
During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax.
A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto.
Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death.
After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.
American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him.
One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.
During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax.
A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto.
Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death.
After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 21, 2023
As you might have heard in a certain musical, The Federalist Papers represented a series of essays published in New York newspapers in 1788 by “Publius” as an attempt to defend the structure and substance of the Constitution proposed for the creation of the government of the United States as we now know it. “Publius” was a consortium of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison; Jay only wrote two or three, Madison a few, especially about the legislature, and most of it comes from Hamilton.
The Federalist Papers has become part of the American hagiography, seen by far too many as the Wisdom from the Founders from On High, as if their understanding should thus inform how we interpret the Constitution to this day.
In reading The Federalist Papers two striking themes kept re-appearing and came to mind.
The first involves some of the effective basis of that hagiography: in many respects we today take for granted a lot of the ways in which the government of the United States is organized and run which were laid out in the Constitution and defended in The Federalist Papers, and we do not imagine how it could be otherwise. But many of these principles needed defending. There were alternate ways of imagining how the United States might organize itself, and many of those views were enshrined in the Articles of Confederarion and were being strongly supported by other factions. It would have been disastrous if the military functions or the ability to make treaties had devolved onto the states individually or in regional blocs. We don’t think twice about how we have become fifty states, but do we think how much power the original thirteen was willing to give up in order for that to become a reality?
The second theme, however, involves a recognition of the thin gruel which represented the bases on which the authors were setting forth their propositions. I have never heard more references to various Greek leagues of city-states than I have in The Federalist Papers, and I was a Classics major. It is a reminder of just how radical the idea of democratic-republican governance with a separation of powers within the federal government and between the federal and state governments really was. Sometimes appeals were made to British common law, but most appeals, if there were any basis in historical experience, would involve those Greek city-state leagues, the Roman Republic, or previous experience under the Articles of Confederation or the kinds of governments already in place in the various states.
Hamilton’s final points about the imperfections of the Constitution and the striving to form a more perfect union remain as apt as ever: the Constitution, and The Federalist Papers which defend it, are important historical documents. They well navigated and negotiated a lot of difficulties. The United States also enjoyed a lot of benefits, some natural, some policy related, and some by chance or good fortune. Yet even its authors recognized the importance of allowing the government to adapt based upon learned experience and socio-cultural changes. The Bill of Rights was good. The later amendments enshrining civil rights and the end of chattel slavery as previously practiced were good. Suffrage for women and non-propertied persons was good.
No doubt many of the changes which have been wrought in the past two hundred plus years would horrify Hamilton, Madison, et al, for even though they did not want to build a European-style aristocracy, they still maintained a lot of aristocratic airs. But I do have to wonder how they would feel in looking at the contrast between the changes and developments in Europe versus the stagnation in governance now prevalent in the United States of America. Yet it seems fairly certain none of them would have been interested in the level of hagiography which currently exists in relation to the forms of government they encouraged. They were the Founders, not the Finishers, of our system of governance.
(Technical concerns about the particular edition of The Federalist Papers linked above: a lot of OCR scanning errors; year numbers left as unknown characters; and especially in the Madison section, too many spacing issues. It’s $1 for a reason. A cleaner version would enhance reading.)
The Federalist Papers has become part of the American hagiography, seen by far too many as the Wisdom from the Founders from On High, as if their understanding should thus inform how we interpret the Constitution to this day.
In reading The Federalist Papers two striking themes kept re-appearing and came to mind.
The first involves some of the effective basis of that hagiography: in many respects we today take for granted a lot of the ways in which the government of the United States is organized and run which were laid out in the Constitution and defended in The Federalist Papers, and we do not imagine how it could be otherwise. But many of these principles needed defending. There were alternate ways of imagining how the United States might organize itself, and many of those views were enshrined in the Articles of Confederarion and were being strongly supported by other factions. It would have been disastrous if the military functions or the ability to make treaties had devolved onto the states individually or in regional blocs. We don’t think twice about how we have become fifty states, but do we think how much power the original thirteen was willing to give up in order for that to become a reality?
The second theme, however, involves a recognition of the thin gruel which represented the bases on which the authors were setting forth their propositions. I have never heard more references to various Greek leagues of city-states than I have in The Federalist Papers, and I was a Classics major. It is a reminder of just how radical the idea of democratic-republican governance with a separation of powers within the federal government and between the federal and state governments really was. Sometimes appeals were made to British common law, but most appeals, if there were any basis in historical experience, would involve those Greek city-state leagues, the Roman Republic, or previous experience under the Articles of Confederation or the kinds of governments already in place in the various states.
Hamilton’s final points about the imperfections of the Constitution and the striving to form a more perfect union remain as apt as ever: the Constitution, and The Federalist Papers which defend it, are important historical documents. They well navigated and negotiated a lot of difficulties. The United States also enjoyed a lot of benefits, some natural, some policy related, and some by chance or good fortune. Yet even its authors recognized the importance of allowing the government to adapt based upon learned experience and socio-cultural changes. The Bill of Rights was good. The later amendments enshrining civil rights and the end of chattel slavery as previously practiced were good. Suffrage for women and non-propertied persons was good.
No doubt many of the changes which have been wrought in the past two hundred plus years would horrify Hamilton, Madison, et al, for even though they did not want to build a European-style aristocracy, they still maintained a lot of aristocratic airs. But I do have to wonder how they would feel in looking at the contrast between the changes and developments in Europe versus the stagnation in governance now prevalent in the United States of America. Yet it seems fairly certain none of them would have been interested in the level of hagiography which currently exists in relation to the forms of government they encouraged. They were the Founders, not the Finishers, of our system of governance.
(Technical concerns about the particular edition of The Federalist Papers linked above: a lot of OCR scanning errors; year numbers left as unknown characters; and especially in the Madison section, too many spacing issues. It’s $1 for a reason. A cleaner version would enhance reading.)
May 15, 2025
The Federalist Papers are an amazing exercise in understanding early American history. The relevance to the current political dialog is stunning. Worth the effort to read and understand. Those guys were prescient about the risks of tyranny and autocracy.
Unfortunately, this edition is terrible. There are numerous typographical errors on almost every page. Missing spaces between words make an already difficult text even more challenging. The table of contents is useless to go to specific essays. It feels as if it was scanned by taking photos of every page or a printed copy with a low-resolution phone held by hand and then applying no correction to the text. Sigh.
Unfortunately, this edition is terrible. There are numerous typographical errors on almost every page. Missing spaces between words make an already difficult text even more challenging. The table of contents is useless to go to specific essays. It feels as if it was scanned by taking photos of every page or a printed copy with a low-resolution phone held by hand and then applying no correction to the text. Sigh.
April 2, 2025
read the full first half, then skipped to the famous papers in the second half. it’s interesting to understand the framework of the constitution and the rationales behind the structure from the federalist perspective, but it’s also quite tedious. it’s also a collection of political propaganda so all the points aren’t argued in the most unbiased way. final note, dear lord someone take away hamilton’s thesaurus.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews