Book Review: The Federalist

The Federalist, edited by J.R. Pole, was a great read, but I’m glad the American Heart Association says it’s fine to drink up to five cups of coffee a day because I needed a few of those—especially while reading Alexander Hamilton’s essays. Still, the book was absolutely worth it.

For those who may not know, The Federalist, commonly referred to as The Federalist Papers, “is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788 and published in various New York state newspapers. They were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those who drafted the Constitution.”1

The essays covered a wide range of subjects, including commerce, the military, the structure of the branches of government, taxation, and much more.

When you read these essays, you quickly realize the remarkable depth of thought behind each one. Whether or not you agree with every argument, it is hard not to conclude that many of today’s elected officials in Congress have a long way to go if they hope to match the intellect, clarity, and passion of these Founding Fathers.

I receive regular email updates from my representatives in Congress and at the state level, and they usually boil down to a couple of paragraphs saying, “Look how bad the other side is, and here’s everything great I’m doing for you.” Can you imagine our elected officials writing detailed essays explaining and defending their positions and then publishing them in local newspapers? Revolutionary, if you ask me. But I also understand that most politicians fear political blowback, so we probably won’t see anything like that anytime soon.

The 2005 edition of The Federalist is excellent. It includes a superb introduction, a concise chronology of political events from 1688 to 1791, an overview of the major themes of the essays, the text of the Articles of Confederation, and—perhaps most helpful of all—the text of the Constitution with cross-references to the relevant Federalist essays. The editor’s historical notes and explanations are outstanding and greatly enhance the reading experience.

Although the chronology officially covers political events from 1688 to 1791, its first entry actually begins with the Magna Carta of 1215 under King John of England, highlighting one of the foundations of modern due process and the right to trial by jury. It reads:

“No Free-man shall be taken, or dispossessed, or imprisoned, of his free tenement or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, save by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the laws of the land.”

There is so much valuable material in this book and in each of the essays that it would be impossible to do it justice in a short blog post. These papers have been studied, analyzed, and debated for more than two centuries, with thousands of articles written about their content. Rather than attempting to summarize everything, I’ll simply highlight a few passages and historical notes that caught my attention as I continued researching what the Founding Fathers actually wrote compared with what we often hear from today’s politicians and pundits.

Two interesting entries from the chronology

1688 – Mennonites (a Christian group) petition in Pennsylvania condemning slavery. (p. xxv)

Many sources identify 161923 as the beginning of slavery in the English colonies, when approximately twenty enslaved Africans were brought to Jamestown, Virginia. It was encouraging to see that organized opposition to slavery emerged very early in colonial history.

June 12, 1776 – Virginia adopts the Declaration of Rights and a new constitution. Separation of church and state later becomes an American constitutional principle. (p. xxxv)

John Jay on the importance of the Union

“The importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes. The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive… providing for their safety… security for the preservation of peace and tranquility, as well against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as from dangers of the like kind arising from domestic causes.” (p. 9)

Alexander Hamilton on taxation

“The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.” (p. 62)

In other words, governments collect tax revenue more easily when the economy is healthy and money circulates freely than when economic activity is weak and money is scarce.

James Madison on the separation of powers

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (p. 261)

“In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects.” (p. 283)

That last quote from James Madison is powerful because he saw diversity as the best safeguard against any single group—whether political, economic, or religious—dominating the rest.

John Jay on the Senate’s role in treaty-making

“The 2d. section (Article II of the Constitution) gives powers to the president ‘by and with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties provided two thirds of the senators present concur.’ The power of making treaties is an important one, especially as it relates to war, peace and commerce; and it should not be delegated but in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security that it will be exercised by men best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good… The inference which naturally results from these considerations is this, that the president and senators so chosen will always be among those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several states or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence. With such men the power of making treaties may be safely lodged.” (pp. 344–345)

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in U.S. constitutional history. It provides invaluable insight into what three of America’s Founding Fathers were thinking as the Constitution was being debated and defended before the states ratified it. I have read that The Federalist is one of the most important works ever written about our system of government. After reading it, I wholeheartedly agree. 

About the Editor:

Jack Richon Pole, was a British historian of the United States. After holding posts at University College, London and the University of Cambridge, he was Rhodes Professor of American History and Institutions at the University of Oxford from 1979 to 1989.4

  1. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text ↩︎
  2. https://www.history.com/articles/slavery ↩︎
  3. https://history.as.uky.edu/400-years-slavery-began-history-full-beginnings-present-can-be-one-too ↩︎
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Pole ↩︎

60 thoughts on “Book Review: The Federalist”

  1. Edward…you have a knack for starting a post with a zinger! You did it this time, for sure!
    I applaud you for tackling challenging reads and persevering. Always impressive. Thank you, my friend! 💝

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. A fascinating review of an important historical work. The Federalist Papers remain a valuable source for understanding political ideas, governance, and the foundations of democracy. Thank you for sharing your insights and making this classic work more accessible to readers.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. I like very much the point on diversity, for biologically speaking, diversity is what allows a species to survive and thrive. A certain species population that, for instance, lacks genetic diversity is in great danger if any unexpected change happens. The same applies to societies; the trap of totalitarianism or leadership by just a few takes the whole to doom. While reading your book reviews on the Founding Fathers, the huge disparity between their mindset and concerns and the mindset and concerns of current leaders comes to mind. Thank you, Edward, for breaking it down for me in such a meaningful way. You help me have a broader picture of our world. With appreciation, light and blessings to you, always my friend 🙏✨

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Susana. The difference between the Founding Fathers and our current leaders is extraordinary, even though we have a lot of professionals such as lawyers and doctors. What always gets me is seeing professionals promoting and engaging in irrational discussions about the environment, health, homelessness, etc., when they should know better and use their education not only to inform citizens, but also to push back when people are trying to promote misinformation. It’s always a blessing having you here, my friend. Hope you have a great rest of the weekend!

      Like

      Reply

  5. Having read this in its entirety did you find them to be intelligent founders and leaders speaking for the nation as a whole or was it a bunch of back stabbing men out for their own ill-gotten purposes? I pray they truly were about us, the American people as a whole? Has politics in your opinion always been so divisive and full of hatred for our fellow man? Sadly I lost my rose colored glasses. I did 12 years of schooling in MA, a pretty colonial state but when I would visit the state house as a student I think I saw people working together to get things done then again they may have always been out for themselves. I am so sick of all of them and now will demand term limits for those deciding on our fate lol I am a rebel at heart I guess. One set of laws for all! No one is above me or better than me, maybe just despicable in their intent 🙂

    Remember this? Our leaders leave me desiring less government. Beginning in 1976, many children in the United States learned the words of the preamble from a Schoolhouse Rock! segment titled “The Preamble”.[79][80][81] Later studies showed that the segment was effective in teaching and reinforcing long-term memory of the words, although a spoken version was more effective for understanding their meaning.[80][82] Though “The Preamble” proved memorable, for metric reasons it deviated from the actual wording by omitting the words “of the United States” from the first line. I will read the book thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you for your comment. They were definitely intelligent people, and it was impressive what they did to establish the government. Of course, they had character flaws, and some were slaveholders, but I get the sense they had the best intentions for the country. As I read this book and others, division was always there, even hate. Thomas Paine had some strong words for George Washington, but the difference was that they worked through disagreements and found consensus. Slavery was one of those sticking points, and for the sake of the Union, they put the subject aside. Nowadays, politics is stronger than common sense in our current environment, so not a lot of common ground is found.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. Fascinating and thought-provoking, as always, Edward. Thank you. Sadly, the words and intentions of the “founding fathers” did not apply to all people. That hypocrisy is the one thing current elected and appointed officials are continuing, though sans any semblance of intellect.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Natalie. You are so right about the hypocrisy, especially with regard to slavery. They knew it was wrong, even Christians knew that, but they did it anyway. I think that is one of the problems that has affected society from the very beginning. I’m always monitoring the Protestant church, since I’m part of it, and it’s amazing to see the things that are happening on a weekly basis.

      Like

      Reply

  7. Love that you are going to the source, Edward. What a great way to get grounded – and some perspective on what we have now. I’m glad you explained that Alexander Hamilton passage on taxation. And James Madison on the separation powers is good. I’m grateful for these founders that provided a strong (not perfect) foundation. Thanks for the great info and review, my friend!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Wynne. It’s fascinating to see how committed they were to the cause. Not only were they debating in Congress, but they also spent significant time and effort informing and convincing their constituents. It’s just incredible.

      Like

      Reply

  8. Your review thoughtfully underscores the enduring significance of The Federalist as a cornerstone of constitutional thought. By connecting its historical context with its continuing relevance to democratic governance, you encourage readers to reflect on the principles of liberty, federalism, and the rule of law. An informative and well-presented review—thank you for sharing these valuable insights.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. I commend you in reading The Federalist Papers and appreciate the snippets you’ve shared with us. I imagine it must be difficult/maddening for Hamilton, Madison, and Jay to witness from the Other Side how far we have strayed from their ideals for our nation.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Rosaliene. I think they would had established term limits for congress and the Supreme Court just to mention a couple of things. They would be appalled if they were alive and witnessing our current way of governing.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  12. Yeah, I would probably feel compelled to drink more than 5 cups of coffee to read this. And I do not drink coffee. Great review, as a Black British I have an interest in slavery in the British colonies as well as in America. Thank you for sharing.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re very welcome. Yes, as I read U.S. and Puerto Rican history, slavery and religion are always in the back of my mind. I’m always interested in reading what people back then thought about these subjects. Slavery is the one that hurts me the most because of the way people thought back then. It is very painful to read some of the narratives.

      Like

      Reply

  13. It does like a book many in Congress would struggle to understand. I can see where some of the more conservative values can trace themselves to these documents – the amount of money in circulation being the basis for taxation sounds a bit like trickle down economics!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Oh, I’m sure some in Congress who talk about the Federalist Papers have never read them. I definitely saw conservative talking points as I read the papers, but some liberal ones as well, mainly from Madison. Regarding taxation, Hamilton was pointing to the fact that you can’t tax people if they don’t have money, that’s it in a nutshell.

      Like

      Reply

    1. Thank you, Phil. It would be ideal if you could find this copy and use the cross-references to read essays corresponding to a particular article of the constitution. It will save you time. I know I’ll be using them to review arguments in the future.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  15. Thanks for sharing your review, Edward, especially as we face non-stop ads for the next election cycle. This book sounds like a great resource for learning more about the Federalists. I immediately looked in my local library system to see if I could borrow it, but so far no luck, I may have to expand my search.
    Just reading your snippets from the book makes me so disappointed in our current politicians and their lack of knowledge and ability to communicate properly with the public. I am so sick of sound bite hatred – as you so succinctly summed up – “Look how bad the other side is, and here’s everything great I’m doing for you.” (My eyes ache from rolling every time I hear a politician speak.)
    Did this book mention the Anti-federalists? Their concerns were important when it came to the creation of the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Rose. It is absolutely sickening to hear what some of our politicians say sometimes. They didn’t mention the Anti-Federalists per se, but a lot of the essays are responses to anti-federalist arguments. For example, Federalist No. 10, written by Madison, responds to the fear that a large republic cannot survive and that factions will destroy liberty. My next project is to find a good Anti-Federalist book to read, and I heard that The Anti-Federalist Papers by Morton Borden is a good one. So, I might go with that one.

      Like

      Reply

  16. Thank you for this blog post, Edward. Maybe you can continue to share small gems/nuggets of historical perspective with the rest of us as you continue your reading. I also appreciate you adding some perspective/reminders regarding African-American history. 1619! I would love to see Professor Gates of FINDING YOUR ROOTS trace the genealogy of those original enslaved human beings into the present day. Maybe this has already been done? Those folks would have roots on this continent going back more than 400 years…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Will. It’s my pleasure to share what I’m learning along the way. I’m not sure how many researchers are working on tracing genealogy, but I know at least one: Dr. Edda L. Fields-Black, the author of Combee, who is doing that and actually has a database/website with the information. In her book, she provided data on some of the enslaved people who were brought to America by ship name and who bought them. Also, she traced some to the present day (including one of her own ancestors). It’s absolutely amazing, the work that she and others are doing to trace their genealogy.

      Like

      Reply

  17. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review/thoughts about The Federalist, Edward. I recently purchased The Federalist Papers e-book. I now wish I’d purchased Pole’s book. It sounds like the cross-references to the Constitution make that book extremely beneficial. As a political science major, I read The Federalist Papers, of course, but that was 50 years ago. I look forward to reading them again — perhaps just one or two of them each day, since I cannot have caffeine. You make so many good points. Yes, it is beyond my imagination that anyone in Congress today could write even a short essay about any of the constitutional foundations and ideals on which our country was founded. It has always amazed me that our young nation was blessed with so many learned and eloquent leaders out of such a relatively small population and time when education was just for the wealthy. Your post today has inspired me. Perhaps I’ll start reading The Federalist Papers tonight. Thank you for making me aware of Jack Richon Pole’s edition.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You’re very welcome, Janet. Cross-referencing to the Constitution is the best tool. Now that I’ve read through the whole thing, I can just go to particular areas of it and read the corresponding papers. Just genius. Your point about education is excellent, and I now wonder if current politicians are getting an education just to climb the ladder instead of using it to improve their understanding of society with the goal of bettering it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  18. I read a similar book that gave a summary to the Hamilton papers and why they felt the Constitution was a necessary upgrade. Thanks for highlighting some key aspects in the papers and clear failings in our current political climate. Like you, Liz, and Robbie, I want to learn and improve, but don’t know how we get there. In theory, it’s up to us, but we don’t have the same power with so much big money currently in politics.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Brad. Yeah, it’s definitely a head-scratcher. You are absolutely right that big money is moving politics in the wrong direction. I still believe that voters can remove politicians who are after big money, but it will take a lot of self-education to understand the issues and then challenge current politicians when they come up with their nonsense. I’m not sure a lot of people are willing to do that.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  19. All the way up through the Civil War, even young back country Privates regularly wrote letters home full of beautiful sentiments and honorable aspiration, all in the most beautiful prose.

    Literacy has been declining for generations here ~ and literature right along with it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  20. I remember reading certain essays from The Federalist Papers in college but not the whole thing. Just reading the passages you’ve highlighted infuriates me to the point of despair. I don’t know which is worse: refusal to follow the thinking behind the formation of our federal government or ignorance of it.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. I hear you, Liz. Frustrating indeed. I’m actually reading another history book, The Creation of the American Republic by Gordon Wood, and so far what I’m getting is that not just the Founding Fathers, but local leaders, historians, educators, philosophers, and clergy were focused on individual freedoms (though slavery was a terrible contradiction) and benevolence that collectively created a common good to counter selfishness, greed, hate, and the use of wealth to gain influence. Not sure how we went from that to what is going on today, I guess it’s just human nature, but it’s infuriating because this country can do so much good for the world.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          1. Here’s what I find hard to wrap my head around. I was on a number of committees to represent my department and led many projects on behalf of the department. I made decisions based on the needs and desires of the people I represented. I would disagree on but I’d speak my piece to the department and if their decision didn’t go my way, it didn’t matter. That’s how I always understood representation to work. I don’t get it.

            You are so right about people doing irrational things when they aren’t heard. Right now, I feel that we’re in a powder keg that could go off any time now.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. That’s so true, Liz. I’m experiencing all that here in our city. I attend the council meetings and people are asking for unrealistic things. The city has a revenue problem and the mayor is trying to bring in new businesses, but citizens are so closed-minded about what businesses they want that it’s almost impossible. There is no money, but people want new parks, better sidewalks, no reduction in the police force, no tax increases, etc. I wonder how in the world the city is going to pay for all that. It’s just a circular discussion because people don’t want to listen to reason and see reality.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              1. School districts across my state had million-dollar deficits the past year, and had to make some unpopular cuts to staff and services. When the federal Department of Education cuts their funding, the districts have to make up the shortfall somehow. NH has no income tax, and schools are funded on the backs of homeowners’ property taxes.

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

                1. I think the same thing is going to happen here. There are going to be cuts, and people are not going to like them. I’m about to listen to the city meeting to discuss the Comprehensive Plan, so that is going to be fun.

                  Like

                  Reply

    1. Thank you, Robbie. I have been thinking a lot about that lately, and I’m not even sure what the best approach to fix it is. In theory, we should be electing capable leaders to run our country, but that is clearly not happening. I know the problem is us, the electorate, for not demanding excellence, but how can we persuade citizens to do that? It’s something that needs a lot of thought.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a comment