The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 1.

This paper is titled General Introduction written for the Independent Journal.

This paper was written by Alexander Hamilton.

by Alexander Hamilton

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS/PAPERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF A SPOILER THREADS IS THE GLOSSARY
THREAD.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Also, the citation thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Introduction:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

This is the reading assignment for the week beginning March 4th through March 11th (2018)

FEDERALIST No. 1 General Introduction Alexander (Hamilton)
March 4th - March 11th (page 27)

For those who would like a free copy:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1...

The copy of the book that I am using is the following:

by Alexander Hamilton

Check the syllabi thread for more details.

We will only be discussing one Federalist Paper a week and we will go in order.

Members can also discuss any previous Federalist paper on its specific thread which was already assigned and or introduced in previous weeks.

Please make sure to be clear which Federalist Paper you are referencing when you post and post to the specific thread assigned to that paper.

So as an example, in week one, we will be able to discuss only Federalist #1, Week Two we will be able to discuss Federalist #2 or a member can go back and make reference to Federalist #1; in Week Three members will be discussing Federalist #3; but members can also during Week 3 make reference to either Federalist #2 or # 1 at any time during that week's period.

But discussion on Federalist #4 cannot take place until Week 4 commences.

This will help us avoid spoilers for those members who are just catching up and it will help minimize confusion.

If anybody would like to kick off discussion of Federalist Paper #1 with some introductory discussion questions, comments, etc. Please feel free to do so.

If folks would like to listen and read along to an audio of Federalist Paper #1 - here is the link:

http://michaelscherervoice.com/the-fe...

Publius

Readers will notice that a pseudonym was used with these essays. Alexander Hamilton wrote this first paper but also signed the essay with the "Publius" pseudonym.

"Publius," was used in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. Publicola had helped establish the Roman Republic and his name means "friend of the people".

Here is the wikipedia write-up on Publius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_...

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexande...

American Revolution Home Page:

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/f...

Interesting ad hoc site:

http://www.alexanderhamilton.org/

Google book on Alexander Hamilton by Henry Cabot Lodge:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zvd0...

Alexander Hamilton: The Man who Made Modern American (New York Historical Society website dedicated to a previous exhibition)

http://www.alexanderhamiltonexhibitio...

US Department of Treasury biography:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/hist...

Hamilton project: University of Virginia:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/ham/h...

From Revolution to Reconstruction:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/B/hamilton/...

Alexander Hamilton on the web:

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/ham...

Ad hoc site:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proje...

United States Congress bio:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/...

US History.org:

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/...

Brandywine Battlefield Historic Site:

http://www.ushistory.org/Brandywine/s...

U-S- History.com - ad hoc site:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h367...

PBS Special: Alexander Hamilton:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h367...




Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton: America's Forgotten Founder: by Murray

http://books.google.com/books?id=ykio...

We will also be using the following book in our discussions of the papers:

by Sanford Levinson

Let us start off by introducing ourselves and telling us what you believe is the relevance of the Federalist Papers.

I want you to know that this is a discussion that I hope will be led by all of you - your comments and questions and interactions will be what keeps us going - I think this could be a very interesting undertaking.

Also feel free to cite court cases (Supreme Court) etc. which deal with topics and issues brought forth in The Federalist Papers. Or any of the topics that are in the news or there is any on going conflict which pertains to the discussion itself.

There is no need to have to cite either book we are using or any of the founding fathers who wrote these papers on these discussion threads. However if you cite an ancillary book, you must use our citation rules.

My name is Bentley - I am the Founder of the group and I will be your moderator. I am living in the Metro NYC area and I love history. I am hoping that everyone will join in and have a fun and lively discussion. I am excited about doing this now because I find that our constitution and our institutions are under great scrutiny lately for a variety of reasons. The papers seem to have as much relevance today as they did when the founders were just trying to get the Constitution ratified.

Let us kick off with an excerpt from Sanford Levinson's book where he states the following:



"Publius in Federalist 1 seems to believe in the existence of an American public that can be trusted to discuss and then decide absolutely basic questions at the heart of governance. Do we think that is possibly today, or is it a quixotic, even potentially dangerous fantasy?"

Discussion Topics:

1. Do you believe that the American public can be trusted to discuss what is at the heart of governance? Why or why not?

2. Do you see evidence that the American public after thoughtful discussion and debate can then decide absolutely basic questions and issues which need to be tabled and debated?

3. Has our society changed so dramatically that this is potentially dangerous or do you believe that the American people still know best and will always in the final analysis make the kinds of decisions that will benefit the majority as well as those less fortunate than themselves (why or why not)?

4. Are we capable of "reflection and choice"?

5. In this new age of what some call - "fake news" - are we still capable of discerning the truth no matter how painful that might be. Or are some deluding themselves and pacifying themselves by only listening to others who "parrot" their point of view? Are we becoming solidified in our own positions so that we do not care to understand the relevance of debating all sides of an issue and reaching compromise? Publius seems to see the glass as half full and he believes in the "good conduct and good example" of the people of this fine country and our ability to establish good government. Do you agree with him or have times changed?

6. Do you agree with Sanford Levinson's statement that Thomas Jefferson believed that we engage in a "revolution" every nineteen years. Are we in one now? If so, what is this revolution about?

7. Are the American people capable of an "unsentimental, intellectually ruthless evaluation of their political situation" or do they retreat to their corner and shut out opposing views?

8. Are Americans concerned about the public good? Do you agree or disagree? And why or why not?

Federalist Paper 1 begins with the following:

General Introduction
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America.

The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good.

But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Sanford Levinson begins his discussion of Federalist 1 with the following quote:



"In his first paper, introducing what we know as The Federalist, Publius tells his audience that "it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

No sentence more marks Publius as a child of the Enlightenment. He calls on his readers to join him in an unsentimental, intellectually ruthless evaluation of their political situation.

One can imagine Thomas Jefferson agreeing with this sentence, even if one is confident that Publius would have dismissed Jefferson's suggestion that we engage in a "revolution" every nineteen years.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are your thoughts on Mr. Levinson's ideas? Or those of Federalist One?

2. How would you evaluate the "political situation" of America today versus in the time when the Federalist Papers were written?

This is from the Khan Academy which may be interesting: (The Federalist Papers)

You can learn about it, too. Check out https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...

And a bit on Alexander Hamilton:

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...

The link to the audiorecording in comment three appears to be broken. Try this one.

http://michaelscherervoice.com/the-fe...

Thank you Tom - we are asking everybody to introduce themselves briefly - welcome to the conversation. Note: I fixed it with the one you suggested.

Would you like to kick off the conversation with a brief intro and start discussing your impressions of the first paper itself or respond to some of the initial discussion questions to kick off the conversation.

Folks, I have added a new video on the main page - the PBS special on Alexander Hamilton.

Just jump right in and introduce yourself briefly and tell us why you are interested in The Federalist Papers and then just jump into the discussion about Federalist One. I will add comments and discussion topics as we move through each paper and paragraph but feel free to add your own.

Also, there are some older discussions in the folder - but I will provide the link to the weekly discussion for each paper and these threads will have the current date on them so that nobody is confused.

Any thoughts on Hamilton, Federalist Paper 1 so far? Try to understand the time period when this was written - what does it tell us about the time period then and how is it relevant today?

Federalist Paper 1

Essay Overview and Summary:

"Alexander Hamilton begins this brilliant discourse on the Constitution of the United States of America by asking his readers to consider a new Constitution because they have experienced the inefficiencies of the present form of government.

He pronounces that the people are in a unique position to answer the most important political question of all: ­ "whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice." If the people are up to the challenge, their actions will have great worldwide significance.

He proceeds to show that many people will oppose the Constitution for a variety of reasons, especially if they benefit from the current form of government.

Hamilton, however, is not going to address the motives of those who oppose the Constitution; rather, his intent is to make arguments that are for the Constitution".

Source: GradeSaver

Second Paragraph:

"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government."

Bentley wrote: "Would you like to kick off the conversation with a brief intro and start discussing your impressions of the first paper itself or respond to some of the initial discussion questions to kick off the conversation. "

This is my first time participating with this group although I have always been an avid student of history. Somehow, I made it through public school and college without ever having the opportunity to read this seminal work in our nation's foundation. Your idea of tackling the papers one at a time has offered me an opportunity to read it without overdosing on the rhetoric, by taking it a bit at a time.

My initial impression is that Hamilton used the Federalist #1 to express his faith in the people to hear and judge his arguments and determine the road forward the United States would take while at the same time acknowledging that there are those who would work to pervert the course of government to their own ends. He exhibited the foresight to warn his fellow citizens, "putting you on your guard against all attempts from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of utmost moment to your welfare," I believe that we are at a stage where the majority of what we believe is spoon-fed to us by those in government and the media who wish to shape the dialogue to their own ends so his warning was very much on point.

Tom welcome - yes, that is what we are doing - we are opening up the Federalist Papers to "reflection, debate, civil interactions" and by going through it just one essay a week it is very doable.

I am afraid that you might be correct about the hidden persuaders in the media and frankly in our political parties as well as the trolls in social media. To me they all have an "agenda" which has nothing to do with the good of the country for all or inspiring or relying on our better angels.

Thoughtful media is critical to the welfare of our country and in a free democracy and I think our journalists really try. I am not talking about the entertainment pundits that promote a party line rather than unvarnished reflection and choice.

Hamilton's warning could not be more timely considering the climate of polarization and the resistance to "reflection, open truthful discourse and after all of the above - choice - which is not based upon personal biases or personal interest".

I think Hamilton did believe that the people of that period would reflect and listen to their better angels. Do you think that the people of this time period reflect, study, debate and then make a choice for the good of the country?

I'm Connie from Connecticut, and I remember my high school history teacher spending weeks on the Constitution since it was so important to our country. Although I have a general idea of the importance of the Federalist Papers, this is my first time to read them. I'm looking forward to the discussions with the group.

In Federalist One, Hamilton says that the Articles of Confederation are inadequate. In these papers he plans to show sound reasons for strengthening the Union/Federal government and ratifying the Constitution. He's going to show how a strong Union gives people more protection and advantages.

When I was reading, I highlighted the second paragraph of Federalist One too. (See Bentley's message 15). Hamilton recognizes that there will be leaders who oppose the Constitution for personal reasons/bias, rather than considering the public good.

Today there are also many politicians that are considering personal advantages rather than the public good. The huge campaign contributions from corporations and powerful organizations add to this problem. Can politicians compromise when there is so much money involved?

Regional differences were on people's minds in the 18th Century when they considered several regional governments rather than one Union. Today the United States is very divided, often along regional lines. Our President has a "divide and conquer" way of conducting business. What a contrast from other leaders such as FDR or Reagan (to choose one from each party) who reached out to unify people! Even if one didn't agree with their politics, a person could feel proud to be an American.

There is such a mix of voices in politics today. There are good thoughtful people as well as people that are mostly motivated by money. There are many groups speaking out now--the students against guns, Black Lives Matter, environmentalists, people for women's rights, people for immigration reform--that could make a difference in the next election if they get to the polls. Younger people are especially getting involved in the protests. Things are not calm now, but they were probably even more volatile at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. At least we have a solid legislative, executive, and judicial framework in place now.

People should "fact check" the media at a reliable site so they get accurate information. Most issues have to be looked at from lots of different angles, and you're not going to get the nuances from Twitter or Facebook. Issues seem to be debated as much as they were in the 18th Century, but compromise may be a lost art.

Hello Connie and welcome - I agree with you - the basic premise was that leaders would be looking out for the public good and we are being warned about the other. Hamilton also discussed power and its abuses. I think we might be seeing both with all of the money that is out there.

Yes, being proud to be an American is a good thing and yet somehow I think our influence and "light" around the world does not appear as bright or far reaching. I am sure that some would disagree - but even in this introductory essay which is full of things to look for - I sense that many now are disappointed - maybe that is the right word with what we are seeing currently. I think we ask ourselves can we do better?

Connie you raise some valid points about all of these special interest groups which Hamilton warns against. I think things were volatile then at the time of the ratification - we were a young, fledgling country but I sense something different now. You are right - we seem to have the basics in place now with their timeline and traditions.

I am not sure about the amount of debate - what I am hearing are polarizing messages which promote one point of view whatever that might be while not reflecting and intellectually putting the ideas out there to be discussed with an open mind towards finding solutions which reflect the country's interests versus special interests.

And I agree what happened to "compromise".

Connie take a stab at some of the discussion topics already posted and I will be adding more as we discuss Federalist Paper 1. Glad to have you with us

Hello, my name is Michael. U.S citizen but a resident of Canada (married to an Alberta girl). I enjoy all things history. Have embarked on a survey of US history through the reading of presidential biographies. Currently reading a book that surveys some of the anti-federalists. I look forward to our discussions here and only hope i can keep up.

I'm Rob in California.

To respond to your two questions...

Levinson's thought regarding the inclusive nature of The Federalist #1's call, to the point that even Thomas Jefferson would support one of Hamilton's arguments. A "feature" of the Enlightenment was reason and thought, so a person of thought and introspection could hardly disagree in theory. This manifests nearly two centuries later, though, in a dangerous way, through the lens of Mao's Constant Revolution, in which all people in China at all times were instructed to question the status quo. This effort led to many lost lives and minimal service to Chinese national interests.

Today's political climate is merely a more dramatized version of politics of yesterday. Two philosophers come to mind to help me elaborate this point: the twentieth century's Martin Heidegger and the eighteenth century's Bernard Mandeville.

In summary, Heidegger argued in "Being and Time" that we don't bother to experience being "in-the-world" until something unplanned occurs. Outside of the unplanned and unexpected, we simply don't experience the world around us. Our political system is merely more visible now due myriad reasons, none of which I will touch upon here, but people think that these events are new. They aren't new, but rather just more exposed. The Federalist #1 even makes the point that the population should be concerned with those countering opinions on the topic by "the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives." Seems like the 24-hour news cycle for the past twenty years, if you ask me!

Mandeville, in "Fable of the Bees" has one of my personal favorite lines: "the nearer we search into human Nature, the more we shall be convinced, that the Moral Virtues are the Political Offspring which Flattery begot upon Pride." This quote makes the point that a politician flattering a person/group/crowd will end up letting that specific group know what is "best" for them. Who doesn't like flattery? Name one inspirational speaker that doesn't appeal to one's sense of self-empowerment. I see The Federalist #1 as Hamilton's way of performing this political trickery. Hamilton makes the point to so assuredly let the reader know that s/he will obviously understand the importance of the debate, thereby giving the reader a sense of self-empowerment and Hamilton's needed buy-in to bring this topic up in public discourse.

The line I thought was important in this essay regarded those who think that individual liberty is the end-all-be-all of a government's duty: "...it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."

by Martin Heidegger

by Mandeville Bernard

Michael wrote: "Hello, my name is Michael. U.S citizen but a resident of Canada (married to an Alberta girl). I enjoy all things history. Have embarked on a survey of US history through the reading of presidential..."

Michael welcome - we are only discussing one essay a week so hopefully you can keep up and we will be doing this for 85 weeks so it will be easier to catch up. I guess that Alberta girl got you to move to Canada (smile).

Rob - you raise a good point about questioning the status quo for the sake and purpose of just questioning the status quo or of being oppositional or maybe for the purposes of shaking things up or destabilizing them - all warned about.

Yes, I agree that these kinds of events are cyclical and Jefferson alluded to that too. I am not sure that the problem is simply just being more exposed - I sense that there is more manipulation and chicanery at play which worries me. And the Federalist Papers warn of that too. Factions, self interest, narrow mindedness versus was is the best for the country, open mindedness, reflection, back and forth, intellectual studying of the ideas and what is being promoted and then after careful debate - compromise and choice. Do you really see that happening now?

Yes, the loudness of the voices - makes my remote come to life.

You are correct in that Hamilton tried to appeal to the better angels of human nature and was promoting what was good about the Constitution and did not dwell upon his opponent's. But still.

I particularly agree with your last paragraph - well done.

Just a little help with the citations - you did very well but forgot the author's photo when available that comes before the author's link (see below)

by Martin Heidegger

by Bernard Mandeville

Welcome - do you want to tell us a little bit about yourself - where you are from - what you do or why you are interested in The Federalist Papers.

One other thing from Political Factions:

"Some of the obstacles Hamilton was painfully aware of came from those who opposed the Constitution. He accused many of them of resisting all changes which might remove power from their hands, “perverted ambition” of those who plan to benefit from not having a Constitution, gaining from the continued division of the country as opposed to the formation of a Union.

“Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives, not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support, as upon those who oppose, the right side of a question.”—

Source: Political Factions

Here is a commentary of Federalist One.

General Introduction to the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton.

https://politicalfactions.wordpress.c...

Describes an approach when reading the Federalist Papers - three questions:

1. What does it say?
2. What does it mean?
3. Why does it matter?

Hello, my name is Donmar. I love history and especially interested in the American history from the French and Indian War (Seven Years' War) to the American Civil War. I first encountered the Federalist Papers while studying the political history of the Revolutionary War and the politics of the founding fathers. My professor back then, though openly a socialist, introduce me to the classical liberalism/libertarianism.

As for the Federalist One, I found Alexander Hamilton to be the stereotypical statist or what a statist would be. He was already in defensive and short of calling those who oppose his idea of big government as the "enemy of liberty."

Modern politicians, supporters, and activists from both side of the political spectrum are quite familiar with that kind of rhetoric:

"You don't support the war, you don't support the troops, you are unpatriotic!"

"Your words offends me! You're a nazi! You're a bigot!"

That's how I see it. Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading other people's ideas and/or interpretation of Federalist One.

Hello Donmar and welcome:

Interesting - I thought Hamilton was trying to be persuasive but he was "strong" in his views but I did not think he was boorish.

I am not sure that he or Madison or Jay were really that much for foreign entanglements and he was quick to call out loud voices and not being reflective. Hmmm but he did call out "perverted ambition".

Also, neither he nor Madison would have resorted to name calling but they had a plan for the country which reflected more than their ideas.

I personally do not interpret Federalist Paper 1 exactly as you have done but I invite you when discussing each paper to cite the sentence that you particularly feel strongly about - one way or another and then we can spotlight the language, the intent and reflect upon it.

I am sure that each paper will influence folks in one way or another but in terms of political science and the study of our government - the Federalist Papers are right up there in importance. And we are here to have civil discourse so all opinions are welcome and respected.

Overview - Why Read the Federalist Papers?

Written following the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Federalist Papers is the foremost American contribution to political thought. Originally published as newspaper essays in New York, they were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the penname Publius. The essays defended the merits of the Constitution as a necessary and good replacement for the Articles of Confederation, which had proven defective as a means of governance.

https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/...

"Introduction: Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Convention"

https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/...

Source: Hillsdale College

One correction to the lecture that I found: - Hamilton was not to my knowledge born in Jamaica. He was born on the island of Nevis.

Alexander Hamilton was born and spent part of his childhood in Charlestown, the capital of the island of Nevis in the Leeward Islands (then part of the British West Indies)

Bentley wrote: "Hello Donmar and welcome:

Interesting - I thought Hamilton was trying to be persuasive but he was "strong" in his views but I did not think he was boorish.

I am not sure that he or Madison or Ja..."

Yeah I agree I doubt that they would have resorted to name-calling. These are men of letters we are talking about.

Yes Hamilton was indeed persuasive and I also don't think that he was boorish or anything like that but he was quite defensive (fourth & fifth paragraph of the essay). I'm not saying that he's wrong and I just merely pointed out that we still have that kind of rhetoric in today's political atmosphere, albeit a bit more childish compare to what they had back then.

Donmar - very true - learned men - I wish we had the same degree of learnedness among our Congress today - for example - the same degree of reflection and choice

Alexander Hamilton could be unequivocal in how he was thinking - and he could be brutally honest about his stance but he was reflective. And by the way - Hamilton worked best when he worked with others or in the case of George Washington under him.

I don't see him as being strident though - like I have seen of late - on our pundit television where my remote is always handy.

You are right - we are living in a politically charged and divisive time stymied by a variety of self interest groups and factions who are more interested in their personal agenda rather than any exchange of reflective thinking or compromise in choice.

I suspect sometimes that it is a question of education and what people have studied in school. These men studied the classics, the western canon, the great philosophers and thinkers and reflected upon those ideas. They read and translated Greek and Latin and had a classical education and studied ethics. A far cry I believe from what our populace is exposed to or has achieved.

I think we always believed in the better angels within us all - and of that carrying us through. But I am not sure if these better angels are as much with us.

This should be an interesting conversation as we move along. I am sure that many folks will have many ideas as to what these passages mean, how they interpret them and why they are important today.

I think the key idea is reflection and choice and the making of decisions and elections based upon what is best for the country rather than what is best for an individual personally or his faction or ideological self interest group. We may have veered off course regarding this point. I would be very interested to hear what others feel about the basic theme of this first paper.

I agree with Rob that the paragraph that reminds readers that effective government is essential to the security of liberty. When Hamilton said 'that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust," I immediately thought of the modern militia set that is so convinced that the government is the enemy. My impression has long been that The Federalist Papers is a book more favored by conservatives so this took me a somewhat by surprise. I'm probably making too much out of the similarity as Hamilton clearly aimed these remarks at those who feared the idea of a stronger federal government, seeing it as the return of an external authority not unlike the one that they had just fought a revolution to get shut of. Nevertheless, we have recently seen the truth in Hamilton's comment about those who"have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

My name is Savannah Jordan. I have had a passion for history and philosophy all my life. It is, however, not the profession I chose. I am an organic chemist with a minor in math.
From what I have read there has always been rabid animosity between the different parties. Jefferson hated Hamilton, Hamilton hated Jefferson. During the War of 1812 a number of northern states refused to send men or money to fight the war. I think that both Hamilton and Adams thought that it would be necessary to install a king and have a government similar to that of England. They were wrong. We beat the odds.

But we had a few things in our favor to help us beat the odds. The U.S. was fairly isolated thus it did not need a king to rapidly mobilize an army for defense. We had a harsh, untamed frontier that imposed self-reliance upon its settlers and, several of the early colonies were founded by Puritans who praised hard work, literacy, equality, and rigid rules of conduct. None of these conditions now exist.

If democracy is to survive (and it very, very rarely has) the ordinary people must have the intellectual and moral ability to know where their rights end and another person's rights begin. That is usually a very formidable task. I can't help but think of Montesquieu's Tale of the Troglodytes, a fictional people, who overthrew a despot, became prosperous because they took into account the greater good and then collapsed into greed, apathy, and licentiousness and lost their freedom. Not an optimistic view of our future.

Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks to Bentley for putting this all together, and thanks to everyone who have shared their thoughts so far. Great stuff.

I wanted to chime in on one of the discussion questions posted early in this thread: whether Americans are capable of reflection and choice.


Publius was surely motivated to take the case for the Constitution to the people with the belief that they were capable of reflecting on the situation at hand and making an informed choice based on the information they were given. That has not changed.

I think the capacity for reflection and choice is still very much with the American people. These days it becomes harder to discern the facts from political propaganda and deliberate misinformation. This makes choice more difficult in some aspects because it means more work in discerning the truth. But it does not make us blind. And the supposed ruthlessness and bitter partisanship of politics is nothing new to us. Just look at what Hamilton said about the state of affairs in 1787 in Federalist 1, p. 29:


And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.

This sounds suspiciously like what we are witnessing today. The idea that politics used to be better is a myth, just like the idea that Americans are now incapable of political reflection because of the rancor of modern politics is a myth. 

I think that because America has always been a place where political debate in the public square has been encouraged, we have in our DNA the means to sniff out and pursue the facts (and a built-in BS detector), and an innate understanding of what is at stake if we become too complacent. 

We just need to exercise those muscles. 


Tom wrote: "I agree with Rob that the paragraph that reminds readers that effective government is essential to the security of liberty. When Hamilton said 'that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be in..."

Tom, you make some very compelling statements.

Hamilton is answering the questions or the objections to the Constitution and in so doing he discussed the advantages of the union, the disadvantages and the evils of not doing something. He had an advantage in that most folks on the other side did not think that the Articles of Confederation were working that well either but they just did not have any better ideas.

Hamilton realized that the Constitution was not created to be perfect but it was certainly something that we could continually think about.

What Hamilton was discussing was creating a "balance". When there is a lack of order - and this was a warning from him - people will welcome some form of tyranny - because it creates order out of a situation that would be anarchy otherwise.

The balance is the "security of liberty" otherwise it can be taken away. Hamilton saw that the people and governments have a way of going to extremes. Without a balance one might kill the other - meaning too much liberty does not provide security and too much security does not provide liberty and both lie in the balance.

That is why he discusses why it is important to look at the "truth" itself and we all know how that is doing.

Hamilton felt that the safest option for securing liberty, happiness and the dignity of the people was the Constitution but he also truthfully said that he was not an impartial party in this. And he wants to explain why he thinks that the constitution will secure both liberty and security.

There is a dichotomy between liberty and security. Too much security takes away liberty and too much liberty takes away security. When there is an over focus on the rights of the people - absolute freedom - what happens is the loss or the total hinderance of security.

Look at the NRA who appear to promote loss of liberty to their gun owners. And they try to make it appear that the rifles of the minutemen are equivalent to the AK 15. And some of these folks like the militias you describe buy these arguments.

When somebody comes on the scene and it has happened all over the world - who promises security and promises to tear down the institutions that many of us hold dear - and then makes it appear that something is not great or dear already - and that the people are suffering under the tyranny of the government - which has been the rock of the country and has preserved their liberties since its onset; then what Hamilton is warning is that these same folks who argue to end this tyranny or tear down the institutions ostensibly to assist the suffering people; in short order become the tyrant themselves and the country slides into authoritarianism without any understanding of what actually happened.

Hamilton warns about what has already happened in the history of the world and he warns about it happening here. And he warned us in 1787.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

Richard wrote: "Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks to Bentley for putting this all together, and thanks to every..."

Welcome Rick. I can see that you have a very positive view on reflection and choice today in America and I am on your side in the hope that Americans need to exercise those muscles and reflect, discuss, open up their ideas to others who can offer other ideas in return, compromise and then make a choice. I am not totally convinced that there are not factions among us which cannot do what is needed and that they are "stuck" in the belief that they are right and the others are wrong.

I agree with you that ruthlessness in government is not new and at least there have not been public floggings or canings lately in the Senate like the caning of Charles Sumner from Massachusetts by Preston Brooks of South Carolina in 1856.

Yes, I agree that the "loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives sounds exactly like what is happening today.

I see your point that "myths" are being created about what "we the people" are capable of and I certainly hope you are correct.

You stated the following:

I think that because America has always been a place where political debate in the public square has been encouraged, we have in our DNA the means to sniff out and pursue the facts (and a built-in BS detector), and an innate understanding of what is at stake if we become too complacent.

My response is that I am not too sure - I would have thought that considering what has transpired over the last year or so that before this time period that this would always have been the case but now I am not as certain as you are. And boy do I hope that I am wrong and you are right (smile).

Thanks for your post and keep posting.

All, I have placed in the glossary - a link and some info to a very helpful course at Yale.

The lecture excerpt is also on the main screen of the History Book Club at the top under videos and I invite all of you to watch and listen to it.

It does discuss not only the period preceding The Federalist Papers and the Papers themselves including Federalist One but also the input of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as well as the diary of Ezra Stiles during this time period when the Constitution was being ratified by the states.

The lecture also presents the views of some of the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.

A very interesting lecture which will give you a backdrop for the reading of The Federalist Papers.

Paragraph Three (I have divided it up for easier reading, for the ability to discuss each segment or sentence in the original paragraph and for the ability to see it more clearly - however all of the segments below were all part of one paragraph - paragraph 3)

"It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature.

I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views.

Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society.

This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.

And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists.

Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.

Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.

For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

Discussion Topics:

1. Isn't it amazing that these were in many instances - the first rough drafts of these men (Hamilton, Madison and Jay)?

They really did not have enough time to redo papers that had to go to the newspapers right away and there were deadlines.

I am amazed at how learned these men were and how astute and aware of the dangers which could potentially lie ahead as well as the benefits of the Constitution. Are you feeling the same way while reading Federalist Paper One? What are your thoughts so far?

2. “Avarice has ruined more men than prodigality, and the blindest thoughtlessness of expenditure has not destroyed so many fortunes as the calculating but insatiable lust of accumulation.”
— Charles Caleb Colton

a) Do you see this as a problem in the US today? Hamilton calls this out as well as ambition, personal animosity, as well as party opposition on both sides of any question or of any policy choice. But of course he is also talking about the ratification of the constitution.

"You stated the following:

I think that because America has always been a place where political debate in the public square has been encouraged, we have in our DNA the means to sniff out and pursue the facts (and a built-in BS detector), and an innate understanding of what is at stake if we become too complacent.

My response is that I am not too sure - I would have thought that considering what has transpired over the last year or so that before this time period that this would always have been the case but now I am not as certain as you are. And boy do I hope that I am wrong and you are right (smile).."

I agree with Bentley on this one. Everything changed after the last election or even before the election.

The left wing faction of the Democratic Party and the alt-right faction of the Republican Party are polluting political debates especially in social media.

Donmar - I sense a shift (hopefully not seismic) but difficult to fathom - but I agree with what Madison and Hamilton will advise against - "factions".

You raise a point about "closed versus open debates" or the pollution of political debates. We have also seen over the past decade the cutting off of debates entirely - not simply with this past election.

I believe and this is just MHO that changes have been afoot for some time. In the Senate even the discussion of just changing the number of votes needed to 51 is a seismic change. And we have seen that happen when one party wants to push something through (not just on one side either) just for political expediency and certainly not for the benefit of the country or the Constitution and we have seen the other side refuse to reflect and compromise - we have called it gridlock or a lack of bipartisanship but it is the same thing that Hamilton and Madison warn about.

(See USA Today - To end government shutdown, Trump suggests Senate use 'nuclear option' - to their credit the Republicans refused to change the filibuster rules - additionally the article discussed how reflection, debate and compromise are working -

Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...)

There are a great many factions (private interest groups, corporations, etc) which have been allowed to pay in a lot of money into campaigns and lobbies which somehow have "polluted" the conversations or at the very least made them much more complicated or muddy.

Rather than to do things for the benefit of the Constitution and the country as a whole - there have been some who have attempted to dismantle the institutions which preserve our liberties at all three levels - national freedoms (protecting us from foreign domination), political freedom (which give us the freedom to vote, holding office, and serving on a jury), and individual freedoms (the ability to live as you choose, economic freedom) and with their policy decisions have attempted to disrupt the balance between these three or disrupt the balance between security and liberty.

Hamilton warns of these kinds of men (I guess in this day and age they can also be women) and he makes a point that we cannot be so sure that those who advance the truth are influenced by purer principles than those who oppose them.

I believe that Hamilton is warning us that we must be protectors of our government, the Constitution, our institutions and most importantly our liberty, freedoms as well as our security and achieve a balance through reflection, compromise and an educated and fully debated choice. And we need to be engaged and alert.

Lately we have heard of bills and policies being rammed through Congress and folks haven't even read them nor have they been allowed to debate them - yet they are forced by their leadership to vote them through without debate or a proper forum.

This is the type of thing that Hamilton and Madison are warning about. What is the problem with allowing discussion and debate and having the arguments in the open if the bill or policy is in the interest of the American people or if the policy is a good one.

If is is a good one - then it will eventually pass and if it isn't - it should not have passed in the first place if the arguments and the debates will tank it.

Factions appear to be allowed to run roughshod over reflection and choice. And this has been seen on all sides I am afraid - so it has not been one party specific or one branch of government specific either.

We live in interesting times so these conversations and exchange of ideas about the writings of Hamilton, Madison and Jay are quite timely.

And everybody or anybody is allowed in our forum to agree or disagree with any of us. We are here to listen to everybody's ideas about the Federalist Papers and how they are quite relevant even today and to be able to study and debate and civilly discuss any element of the papers. Even with Federalist One we have an awful lot to discuss.

And I hope that Richard will also respond to your Donmar.

Bentley wrote: "Factions, self interest, narrow mindedness versus was is the best for the country, open mindedness, reflection, back and forth, intellectual studying of the ideas and what is being promoted and then after careful debate - compromise and choice. Do you really see that happening now? ."

Nope! I would agree that there are major concerns with our current condition. I just don't know enough to compare the percentage of people/entities responsible for such concerns between 1787's America and 2018's America.

To the point that Donmar made, our current state of media doesn't help political discourse at all. I recall reading Breaking the News by James Fallows in high school regarding the media undermining American democracy, and the problem has only grown in the twenty-plus years since that book was written! Instantaneous tweets and base thinking rules the day instead of rumination and insightful commentary.

Unfortunately, it takes significant events to get the public at large interested in civics issues, which leads to the current concern that the more popular methods used to inform our citizenry don't exactly foster an environment of either civility or neutrality. We experienced a significant breach in civic processes in 2016 and the methods used to inform us of what happened are polarized.

The book, while still relevant, could use an update to include 21st century media:
by James M. Fallows

Also, I am interested in participating in this because thinking about about and discussing what our Founding Fathers put together makes me realize that we can't lose our way as a society. We can't learn something new if we never challenge ourselves intellectually. As well, it is refreshing to admit to changing our mind on some points after reviewing better evidence than we had before.

Rob, fair point. Thank you for the add by the way.

I feel differently about the media and journalists. I think they try -but now when anything anybody stands for on their personal time and when they are not reporting - might be made public - this has created difficulties.

Link: https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsma...

But on the other side of the coin are the 24x7 entertainment pundits - on any network - it doesn't matter - they are vastly different and they stir the pot for whatever side they happen to be on without much of an attempt at neutrality. The truth oftentimes lies somewhere in the middle. I am not talking about claiming that unfavorable news stories are fake news - that is something completely different and I do not think even Hamilton or Madison could have predicted that. As bizarre as that has become; it is sweeping the globe.

What was different about the news years ago - was that it was strictly the news - without any bias or hidden persuaders - one way or the other; and the journalists reported the facts without any embellishments or without trying to make themselves or the news entertaining. Think of Walter Winchell, Edward R. Morrow, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Walter Cronkite or John Chancellor.

Also in fairness to Hamilton, Madison and Jay; they made it clear that they were not impartial and stated that this is what they stood for and were promoting - the ratification of the Constitution.

Entertaining people seems to be what it is about now - heaven forbid anything be considered boring or someone could just report the news just like it is and I am not placing our journalists who report from war zones or write sourced articles in the same pot at all.

I think the breach in civic processes did not begin in 2016; but has been in the works for a couple of decades to say the least (JMHO).

Maybe civics and ethics should be taught in our high school and colleges again.

What happened to community service and helping out in local community work and charities and neighborly deeds - all of these things help improve our country and how the folks we choose govern. They supposedly represent us.

You are correct Rob - we do not want to lose our way as a nation and start not to value that which has kept our liberties and our security intact.

In some ways - again just MHO - Americans have become mentally lazy relying on sound bytes on their iphone or cell phones to fill them in on what they should be studying, debating and learning about themselves.

I think they view these things as somebody else's job aside from their own. And that to me is the part that is different.

I think before it is too late - we should wake up to the fact that we should be sticking our heads into debating the issues and reading books and articles to prepare us for the discussions versus slinging a tweet at somebody who might have an opposing view and considering ourselves "well informed" or the "other side" of the argument as being all wet.

Tolerance needs to be exercised and seeing somebody else's point of view and respecting their right to make their case and listening carefully to all points of view is what reflection, compromise and choice are all about.

Reflection - you are right takes time and is a vigorous mental exercise. You have hit the nail on the head. Are we capable of "reflection and choice"? I certainly hope so. That is one of the major themes of Federalist One.

Daniel Webster is known for a great quote among many other things

"Stick close to the Constitution, miracles do not occur in clusters."
--Daniel Webster

Here is the quote in its entirety:

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” – Daniel Webster

Discussion Topic:

1. What was Daniel Webster talking about - what does that quote mean to you after reading Federalist Paper One?




Daniel Webster


Alexander Hamilton


John Jay


James Madison - 4th President of the United States

Folks, I have placed in the glossary some videos from courses with the late Professor J. Rufus Fears and some presentations of what is a constitutional crisis and are we in one presented by Professor Stephen Vladeck. I will alert you to adds in the glossary as we are on this journey for the next 85 weeks.

One thing to remember about the press is that they need to be protected (our first amendment rights) - remember the Federalist Papers were also first published in a newspaper.

The press is always the first to be thwarted when a country turns away from freedom of speech and freedom of the press - so even though I use my remote often for the news channels - I applaud their right to report what they report even though their style and approach does not suit me as far as the cable networks go.

I do not think that our leaders should incite hatred towards our press. In fact not inciting anybody would be a welcome relief.

I just wanted to make sure that I clearly stated that I stand for a free press in this country and I am fully behind the First Amendment - one of our rights. There has been a lot of talk about the media but I respect their right to report and ferret out the truth.

First Amendment: - of the Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Paragraph Three which I cited above in message 36 - calls upon all of us to have an "open mind".


Alexander Hamilton painted by Ames

a) Hamilton goes on to say that many wise and good men have been on the wrong side of an argument or a policy choice - so even though you think you are right does not mean that you are.

b) You could also be a good and wise person too - but think of the many times that with reflection, additional information or discussion - you realized that you had not made the prudent or wise choice or decision.

That does not make you a bad person at all. A wise person will be humble enough to change their mind.

So we should view others who are on a different side of an argument than we are - not with hateful intentions but with an offer to exchange information and ideas and debate and reflect together.

Discussion Topics:

1. What are your thoughts on Hamilton's idea about maintaining an open mind - about ideas and those who oppose your ideas. How does Hamilton think you should go about promoting your ideas to others and how does he think that you should build consensus?

2. Have you ever changed your mind about a political issue or about a candidate or leader? Who or what changed your thinking?

3. If somebody insulted you or defamed you - would you be inclined to change your mind about them or their idea even if you felt that they were right?

a) When you watch the polarization in Congress - do you think that the invectives and name calling are changing anybody's thinking?

b) Have you ever seen a politician change their mind and tell you why? When did this happen and under what circumstances?

4. Hamilton states that it is hopeless to use force in changing minds - so what can be utilized to bring Congress together and build alliances? What type of countries use force to change minds?

a) How do you think that Hamilton would view the state of our government today, the gridlock in Congress, the loudness of the debates and the lack of bipartisanship? How would he view these individuals, the media, and the electorate?

Paragraphs Four and Five:

"And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

Discussion Topics:

1. In paragraphs 4 and 5 - Hamilton tells the reader what his motives are and what he is trying to accomplish. Hamilton indicates that it is in the reader's interest to adopt the constitution for their security, liberty, dignity and happiness. Do you buy Hamilton's arguments?

2. This segment is key - what are your thoughts?

History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

From Hillsdale College:
"The Improved Science of Politics"

Overview

Publius argued that the “science of politics . . . has received great improvement” in his own day. These improvements include separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, judges who serve a life term during good behavior, and what he called “the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT” of government. Contrary to the practice of previous republics, Publius argued that a republic had a much greater chance of achieving success if it is spread out over a large or extended territory, rather than a small or contracted one.

Link to Video: https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/...

There are two videos - one prepares you for the remainder of one and gives you an overview of what is coming up.

And the second video is a bit of a Q&A - also on the same url screen

The Remainder of Federalist Paper One:

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

PUBLIUS.

1 The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.

Discussion Topics:

1. The approach for all of the Federalist Papers is for you to read the paper and ask yourself what is it telling me, what can I learn from it and is it applicable to today's climate and government.

What do you think of the first Federalist Paper? Your thoughts and reactions. We have quite a few folks signed up for this journey so please just jump right in - there are no right or wrong answers.

2. Hamilton outlines what he is going to discuss in the next few papers:

a) THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY

b) THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION

c) THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION

c) THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

d) Hamilton states that he will present arguments for each objection.

e) That he has heard rumor that the union will be too big for one Constitution

f) And Hamilton will discuss the fallout if the Constitution is not ratified.

What do you think of Hamilton's approach and of Federalist Paper One? I have completed going through the first paper with you and I am looking forward to reading your thoughts and ideas. Federalist Paper Two will begin on a new thread on March 12th. The more folks who post the more exciting the journey will be - we have 113 folks signed up and what you should do first is to simply introduce yourself on this thread first and then take a stab at the first discussion questions, etc. and then move through the thread.

We will always respond and dialogue with you and hopefully all of the group members will interact with each other. So don't hide out - just post and keep posting.

Jodi our rules and guidelines pop up before you post for the first time on our group site and would have indicated that we do not allow self promotion.

I have copied and reposted your post minus the offending segment.

Jody posted:

The one thing I found interesting about this first letter is that, unlike what some are saying in this thread, I think Hamilton sounds rather anxious about the dialogue he knows intellectually is a necessary part of democracy. When he writes, "a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government," I have the distinct impression that he really DOESN'T trust the populist or states-rights faction at all. His call for debate is filled with a clear wish he could control the debate. This was my chief takeaway from Paper 1. More soon!

I did not notice any anxiousness on the part of Hamilton - remember he calmly faced a duel which killed him so I never saw him as an anxious sort. But that is an interesting takeaway.

Well he and Jefferson were not on the same wave length. And frankly even Madison found Jefferson to be flaky at times even though he was a good friend of Jefferson's and vice versa. Jefferson was brilliant but was also known to be cunning and frankly resented the influence that Hamilton had with Washington. Washington was more impressed with Hamilton than Jefferson and the last letter Washington wrote was to Hamilton. That says a lot.

I do not see him as trying to control the debate - I think he and Madison as well as Jay before he got sick were a match for any formal and civil debate on the subject. They knew the subject matter, they knew the objections and they were meeting them head on and campaigning for the ratification of the Constitution and they needed nine states. New York was important. Hamilton clearly states and does not hide the fact that he was showing partiality for the passing of the Constitution and why.

But I do think that what you are stating is a very interesting observation. I think it is more Jefferson he does not trust and his tendency to sidebar issues that he was not for - Jefferson was rather suspicious of a strong federal government and was more a states rights kind of guy - more of an Anti Federalist but only nominally so - he wrote to Madison that he hoped that the Constitution would be ratified but that there would be some amendments. He was one of the proponents of the Bill of Rights. However he and the remainder of the Republican Party - (btw - not the republican party of today) opposed later what they considered the Federalist's policy and he especially harbored resentment against Hamilton personally - possibly he discriminated against him for being an orphan or immigrant who did not have the classical education that he (Jefferson) had. In fact, John Adams had his issues with Jefferson himself though they mended fences in their later years through Abigail's intervention.

Jefferson also was a Francophile and Hamilton and Madison favored relations with the British after the war in terms of shipping and then there was the National Bank. I would hazard to say that Jefferson never got over Washington's distinct preference for Hamilton and his ideas over Jefferson's but anxious - I don't know - in his personal affairs he was rather reckless but maybe he should have been more anxious - maybe that would have saved some of his personal embarrassments with his outside activities.

In the PBS special - the actor portraying Governor Morris - a close friend of Hamilton said he was vain, indiscreet and opinionated - but no man had done more to shape the character of the country than Alexander Hamilton - even though he was an orphan, an immigrant, an outsider, a scholarship boy, a college dropout - and it is hard to explain Hamilton as the PBS film states because you are trying to explain - "genius".

He was self consciously brilliant and yet had an obsession for honor.

But anxious is never a word used to describe Hamilton that I have read - have you read anything that indicates that Hamilton was anxious at this point in time or is it just your impression when reading the introduction - Federalist Paper One.

That is an interesting takeaway and I will have to ponder that more. I wonder what other group members and readers are thinking.

Welcome to the conversation Jodi.

Bentley wrote: "Federalist Paper 1

Essay Overview and Summary:

"Alexander Hamilton begins this brilliant discourse on the Constitution of the United States of America by asking his readers to consider a new Cons..."

Reading an electronic version by , and it is a version of the Signet Series recommended by Bentley, our group's leader.

It seems to me based recent events that I believe most Americans don't actually care very much about who or how we are governed. The evidence of the 2016 general elections is a case in point.

Despite what the pundits or the tech security gurus find, there is one example that comes to mind regarding a problem that might be of interest in the investigations going on regarding tampering in the 2016 General Election. My example looks at one battleground state, which may be an exemplar across our nation. Here is what I think might have occured.

There were clear points in one state (Florida is the one I distinctly remember). There, precinct voters swung widely between population concentrations. Example, towns and cities where more voters lived, had a slight but definite win appearing for Mrs. Clinton, while Mr. Trump received high percentages in rural precincts with small towns, but fewer individual concetrations of elrgible voters. Fewer is the key word. When tallied, the votes by precinct went mainly for Mr. Trump in rural areas, including more indivifual precincts and narrow majority for Mr. Trump over all. Mrs. Clinton's voters in the cities and town's yielded a greater number of electoral votes, initially. But in the end the race was almost too close tomcall with Mrs. Clintin leading inmthe vote, but Mr. Trump keading on yhe electoral side. The point is, the voters' wishes by ballot did not carry the day once the electoral vote was decided, in favor of Mr. Trump. I suspect a critical analysis where electoral votes outstripped popular votes by precinct compared with electoral vote distribution, we will probably see that Mr. Trump's win was a strategically planned way to get the electoral votes at the expense of the popular vote. It sounds crazy, I know, but look at a population by precinct, and I believe we might see a smoking gun.

What better way to run the man wanted than the woman needed? That is how the FRS might be "rigging" getting the weakest link into the highest office in our country.

Richard welcome to the conversation - I guess what you are saying is that your viewpoint is that "reflection and choice" have fallen by the wayside.

Especially if the populace can elect an individual who given the circumstances appears ostensibly to be dismantiling our institutions one by one. Of course that might be an overstatement of what you are feeling but I think it might be on target.

Hamilton in Federalist One talks about such an individual and the far reaching ramifications of a bad choice. Now I am not going to get into whether the current office holder of the executive branch is a good or bad choice - but the effects of that choice are certainly being felt by all of us whatever your position. Should that be the case is a good question to ask?

Gerrymandering is alive and well in many states but clearly one candidate won the popular vote by a huge margin and the other cleaned up the electoral college votes blocking the other candidate from victory and of course that was the plan all along. Fair, unfair, manipulated or not - we are left with the results of that election. And any leader will affect the country - good or bad including the present executive branch holder.

Are some folks having buyer's remorse - possibly but the base for the current office holder refuses to see the reality and believes the facts as they are presented by the office holder and we all know how that is going. So there we have it. Three more years to the next election and we will have to wait and see what the people do next time. That about sums up - how our system works. It does create issues for our current electoral college system but that is not the subject of Federalist One - although this paper does describe quite accurately the fall out from an ill defined and unstudied choice based upon emotion versus reason and what is good for the country and not upon personal factions and special interest groups. Some members may love the result - others not so much. However, all of us are left to live with the result.

And as the Federalist One paper stated - certain individuals can tap into the misery and the hopelessness of an electorate and promise them moonbeams and rainbows and a path full of gold and then never deliver. And then turn into their worst enemy. And I am not saying that this is what happened - it depends upon how you look at the past year and how happy you are with it. But things have changed domestically and internationally as Federalist Paper One warned might happen. So everybody has to be the judge and reflect on this past year. And make better choices next time or be happy with the status quo - that is what our democracy is about.