The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, 1788)

Without fail, I always manage to find a book each year that totally throws me off my game. Up until July I was well on my way to crushing a nice book-a-week pace, but then history intervened. Well, history and a particularly addictive new app on my phone. Compound this little matter with the fact I'm super busy at work and you can plainly see the blog is suffering. I've come to think of this project as doubling as an exercise in journaling, which, in its own way, keeps me stable, so in spite of Work Mountain on my shoulders, I'm going to try to add a little something each day here and get caught up.

Anyway, the Federalist Papers was on my to-read list for a long time, almost as long as it took me to read all 85 articles, complete with the introduction, supplements, and footnotes. While it certainly isn't an easy read, and parts just patently don't hold up anymore, it's something that every American should endeavor to read at least once in their lifetime.

The idea of reading the Federalist came back around 2008 when I read Ron Chernow's door-stopper of a tome on Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton wrote the majority of the articles, though Madison wrote the most influential ones. Jay wrote about five of them, mostly at the very beginning. For what it's worth, the pseudonym "Publius" is essentially Hamilton's creation. As time went on, it was clear that Hamilton stayed most faithful to the philosophy of the work, while Madison, under the sway of Thomas Jefferson, would stray. Jay remained a Federalist, but would be better known as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a governor of New York, than a major political thinker.

The Federalist is not a blueprint for government, but a commentary (and an opinionated one at that) on the hottest document of the day, the proposed Constitution for the United States. Needless to say, the Constitution went far beyond the original aims of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, not merely "revising" the Article of Confederation, but effectively tossing them out and replacing them with a model of a strong central and national government paralleling that of the state governments. With the American Revolution still fresh on everyone's minds, the notion of creating a strong national government structure was greeting with ample skepticism and much arm-twisting and cajoling was going to be needed to get enough states to ratify the document. One particularly hot battleground was New York, and therefore the perfect place to publish a series of articles defending the new Constitution and debunking the critics.

The articles aren't perfect. One particularly telling section is a dismissal of the need for a Bill of Rights, something that obviously didn't go Publius's way. Also, over time the idea of the Senate being created from appointments by state legislatures fell into disfavor and was ultimately replaced by direct elections under the 17th Amendment. However, in the Federalist, Publius really goes to bat defending the old model, as a way of keeping that body distinct from the House of Representatives. Also the language is slightly archaic, so it's easy to miss some of the points being made if one reads them too quickly. However, that is not a fault of the authors, but more of a caution to prospective readers.

To repeat, if you have the time (allow a month) and an interest in American government, consider taking the plunge and reading the Federalist. Short on time? As an American citizen (or American enthusiast), take it upon yourself to at least read the supplements: The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. You'll be a better person for it, and you will realize how little our current politicians understand American government in this era. Conversely, if you have another month to burn, do what I plan to do in the future: read the so-called Antifederalist Papers, a collection of writings by those opposed to the Constitution. Although branded the "losers" in the history books, a number of their ideas would survive ratification, leading to both good and bad things, like the Bill of Rights and the Civil War respectively.