Read The Federalist Papers Online
Authors: Alexander Hamilton,James Madison,John Jay,Craig Deitschmann
Tags: #General, #United States, #History, #Law, #Legal History, #Current Events, #History: American, #Political Science, #United States - Revolutionary War, #History & Theory - General, #Politics, #History & Theory, #Revolutionary Period (1775-1800), #USA, #Political Ideologies - Democracy, #Constitution: government & the state, #Constitutions, #Government, #American history: c 1500 to c 1800, #Constitutional & administrative law, #Constitutional history, #Constitutional history - United States, #Constitutional, #Constitutional law, #Law: General & Reference, #c 1800 to c 1900, #History of the Americas, #Government - U.S. Government, #c 1700 to c 1800, #U.S. Constitutional History, #Political structure & processes, #Sources, #U.S. History - Revolution And Confederation (1775-1789), #Constitutional law - United States, #Modern history to 20th century: c 1700 to c 1900
The Federalist Papers (84 page)
12
(p. 384) [No. 69]
Every jurist of that kingdom .. knows that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown... independent of any other sanction:
Hamilton accurately gauges the absolute powers of the English monarch in contrast to the limited powers proposed for an American president. Hamilton refers here specifically to jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780), who wrote, ”The constitution of the kingdom hath entrusted him [the monarch] with the whole executive power of the laws,” and that “what is done by the royal authority, with regard to foreign powers, is the act of the whole nation: what is done without the king’s concurrence is the act only of private men.” See Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-1769), vol. 1, pages 257, 245.
(p. 384) [No. 69]
Every jurist of that kingdom .. knows that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown... independent of any other sanction:
Hamilton accurately gauges the absolute powers of the English monarch in contrast to the limited powers proposed for an American president. Hamilton refers here specifically to jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780), who wrote, ”The constitution of the kingdom hath entrusted him [the monarch] with the whole executive power of the laws,” and that “what is done by the royal authority, with regard to foreign powers, is the act of the whole nation: what is done without the king’s concurrence is the act only of private men.” See Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-1769), vol. 1, pages 257, 245.
13
(p. 394) [No. 70] *
De Lolme:
The reference here is to the political philosopher Jean Louis De Lolme (c.1740-1806). The passage can be found in De Lolme’s
The Constitution of England, or An Account of the English Government;
In which it is compared with the
Republican Form of Government,
and occasionally with the other
Monarchies in Europe
(third edition, London, 1781), page 215.
(p. 394) [No. 70] *
De Lolme:
The reference here is to the political philosopher Jean Louis De Lolme (c.1740-1806). The passage can be found in De Lolme’s
The Constitution of England, or An Account of the English Government;
In which it is compared with the
Republican Form of Government,
and occasionally with the other
Monarchies in Europe
(third edition, London, 1781), page 215.
14
(p. 432) [No. 78] *
Vide Protest of the minority of the convention of Pennsylvania, Martin’s speech, &c.:
American lawyer Luther Martin (c.1744-1826), an anti-federalist, had walked out of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in protest. His subsequent “Protest of the Convention of Pennsylvania” was delivered during the ratification debate of the Maryland Constitutional Convention on November 29, 1787, and printed in the
Maryland Gazette
on December 28, 1787.
(p. 432) [No. 78] *
Vide Protest of the minority of the convention of Pennsylvania, Martin’s speech, &c.:
American lawyer Luther Martin (c.1744-1826), an anti-federalist, had walked out of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in protest. His subsequent “Protest of the Convention of Pennsylvania” was delivered during the ratification debate of the Maryland Constitutional Convention on November 29, 1787, and printed in the
Maryland Gazette
on December 28, 1787.
15
(p. 435) [No. 79] *
Vide Constitution of Massachusetts, Chap. 2, Sect.1, Art. 13:
This part of the Constitution of Massachusetts (1780) calls for “an honorable stated salary, of a fixed and permanent value” for the governor of the state and the justices of the Supreme Court. John Adams (1735-1826) drafted the state’s Constitution while he was serving as a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.
(p. 435) [No. 79] *
Vide Constitution of Massachusetts, Chap. 2, Sect.1, Art. 13:
This part of the Constitution of Massachusetts (1780) calls for “an honorable stated salary, of a fixed and permanent value” for the governor of the state and the justices of the Supreme Court. John Adams (1735-1826) drafted the state’s Constitution while he was serving as a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.
16
(p. 478) [No. 84] *
Vide Rutherford’s Institutes, vol. 2, book II, chap. x, sect. xiv, and xv.... Vide also Grotius, book 11, chap. ix, sect. viii and ix:
Hamilton gives the name of the author of the first source incorrectly: It is Thomas Rutherforth. The complete references to these texts are as follows: Thomas Rutherforth’s
Institutes of Natural Law; Being the Substance
of a
Course of Lectures on Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis
(Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1779), vol. 2, book 2, chapter 10, sections 14 and 15, pages 72-76; and Hugonis Grotii, De
Jure
Belli et Pacis (Edinburgh: Andreas Anderson, 1707), book 2, chapter 9, section 5, p. 124.
(p. 478) [No. 84] *
Vide Rutherford’s Institutes, vol. 2, book II, chap. x, sect. xiv, and xv.... Vide also Grotius, book 11, chap. ix, sect. viii and ix:
Hamilton gives the name of the author of the first source incorrectly: It is Thomas Rutherforth. The complete references to these texts are as follows: Thomas Rutherforth’s
Institutes of Natural Law; Being the Substance
of a
Course of Lectures on Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis
(Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1779), vol. 2, book 2, chapter 10, sections 14 and 15, pages 72-76; and Hugonis Grotii, De
Jure
Belli et Pacis (Edinburgh: Andreas Anderson, 1707), book 2, chapter 9, section 5, p. 124.
17
(p. 484) [No. 85]
The reasons
assigned
in an excellent little pamphlet lately published in this
city...
deliberated, and concluded:
Hamilton’s reference to “, an excellent little pamphlet” is to another Publius! The piece in question is John Jay’s
An Address to the People of the State of New York, on the Subject of the
Federal
Constitution, Agreed upon at Philadelphia, the 17th of September, 1787
(New York: Samuel and John Loudon, 1788). Jay was probably the single most influential delegate at the New York Convention that ratified the Constitution by a narrow margin.
(p. 484) [No. 85]
The reasons
assigned
in an excellent little pamphlet lately published in this
city...
deliberated, and concluded:
Hamilton’s reference to “, an excellent little pamphlet” is to another Publius! The piece in question is John Jay’s
An Address to the People of the State of New York, on the Subject of the
Federal
Constitution, Agreed upon at Philadelphia, the 17th of September, 1787
(New York: Samuel and John Loudon, 1788). Jay was probably the single most influential delegate at the New York Convention that ratified the Constitution by a narrow margin.
18
(p. 487) [No. 85] *
Hume’s Essays, vol. 1, page 128... The rise of arts and sciences:
Hamilton refers here to a book by political philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) called
Essays, Moral and Political
(Edinburgh: R. Fleming and A. Alison, 1741). There is much scholarly debate over the extent of Hume’s influence on Hamilton.
(p. 487) [No. 85] *
Hume’s Essays, vol. 1, page 128... The rise of arts and sciences:
Hamilton refers here to a book by political philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) called
Essays, Moral and Political
(Edinburgh: R. Fleming and A. Alison, 1741). There is much scholarly debate over the extent of Hume’s influence on Hamilton.
FOR FURTHER READING
Adair, Douglass.
Fame and the Founding Fathers.
Edited by Trevor Colbourn. New York: W.W. Norton, 1974.
Fame and the Founding Fathers.
Edited by Trevor Colbourn. New York: W.W. Norton, 1974.
Allen, W. B., and Gordon Lloyd, eds.
The Essential Antifederalist.
New York: University Press of America, 1985.
The Essential Antifederalist.
New York: University Press of America, 1985.
Bailyn, Bernard.
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
Banning, Lance.
The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.
The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.
Chernow, Ron.
Alexander Hamilton.
New York: Penguin, 2004.
Alexander Hamilton.
New York: Penguin, 2004.
Elkin, Stanley M., and Eric McKitrick.
The Age of Federalism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
The Age of Federalism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Epstein, David F.
The Political Theory of “The Federalist.”
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
The Political Theory of “The Federalist.”
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Ferguson, Robert A.
Reading the Early Republic.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Reading the Early Republic.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
—.
The Enlightenment in America, 1750—1820.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
The Enlightenment in America, 1750—1820.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Furtwangler, Albert.
The Authority of Publius: A Reading of “The Federalist Papers. ”
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984.
The Authority of Publius: A Reading of “The Federalist Papers. ”
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984.
Greene, Jack P., ed.
The Reinterpretation of the American Revolution,
1763-1789. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
The Reinterpretation of the American Revolution,
1763-1789. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
Koch, Adrienne, ed.
The American Enlightenment.
New York: George Braziller, 1965.
The American Enlightenment.
New York: George Braziller, 1965.
Lutz, Donald S.
The Origins of American Constitutionalism.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988.
The Origins of American Constitutionalism.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988.
Lutz, Donald S., ed.
Colonial Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History.
Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1998.
Colonial Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History.
Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1998.
Main, Jackson Turner.
The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution,
1781-1788. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961.
The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution,
1781-1788. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961.
May, Henry F.
The Enlightenment in America.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
The Enlightenment in America.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Morris, Richard Brandon.
The Forging of the Union,
1781-1789. New York: Harper and Row, 1987.
The Forging of the Union,
1781-1789. New York: Harper and Row, 1987.
Potter, Kathleen O.
The Federalist’s Vision of Popular Sovereignty in the New American Republic.
New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2002.
The Federalist’s Vision of Popular Sovereignty in the New American Republic.
New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2002.
Rakove, Jack N.
Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.
Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.
Rossiter, Clinton Lawrence. 1787:
The Grand Convention.
New York: Macmillan, 1966.
The Grand Convention.
New York: Macmillan, 1966.
Siemers, David J.
Ratifying the Republic: Antifederalists and Federalists in Constitutional Time.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.
Ratifying the Republic: Antifederalists and Federalists in Constitutional Time.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.
Stahr, Walter.
John Jay: Founding Father.
New York: Hambledon and London, 2005.
John Jay: Founding Father.
New York: Hambledon and London, 2005.
White, Morton.
The Philosophy of the American Revolution.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
The Philosophy of the American Revolution.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Wills, Garry.
Explaining America: “The Federalist.”
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.
Explaining America: “The Federalist.”
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.
Wood, Gordon S.
The Creation of the
American
Republic, 1776-1787.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.
The Creation of the
American
Republic, 1776-1787.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.
.
The Radicalism of the American Revolution.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.
The Radicalism of the American Revolution.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.
a
The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the New Constitution. [This and all footnotes in this volume are by Alexander Hamilton. Annotations by the current editor, Robert A. Ferguson, appear in the endnotes.]
b
ASPASIA, vide PLUTARCH’s life of Pericles.
c
Madame Madame de Maintenon.
d
Duchess of Marlborough.
e
Madame de Pompadoure.
f
THE LEAGUE OF CAMBRAY, comprehending the Emperor, the King of France, the King of Arragon, and most of the Italian Princes and States.
g
The Duke of Marlborough.
h
Vide Principes des Negotiations par l’Abbe de Mably.
i
This objection will be fully examined in its proper place; and it will be shown that the only rational precaution which could have been taken on this subject, has been taken; and a much better one than is to be found in any Constitution that has been heretofore framed in America, most of which contain no guard at all on this subject.
j
Spirit of Laws, Vol. I. Book IX. Chap. I.
l
I mean for the union.
m
The subject of this and the two following numbers happened to be taken up by both Mr. H. and Mr. M. What had been prepared by Mr. H. who had entered more briefly into the subject, was left with Mr. M. on its appearing that the latter was engaged in it, with larger materials, and with a view to a more precise delineation; and from the pen of the latter, the several papers went to the Press.
[The above note from the pen of Mr. Madison was written on the margin of the leaf, commencing with the present number, in the copy of the Federalist loaned by him to the publisher.]
n
This was but another name more specious for the independence of the members on the federal head.
o
Pfeffel, Nouvel abreg. chronol. de l‘hist. etc. d’Allemagne, says, the pretext was to indemnify himself for the expense of the expedition.
p
This, as nearly as I can recollect, was the sense of this speech on introducing the last bill.
q
Encyclopedia, article Empire.
r
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, South Carolina, and Maryland, are a majority of the whole number of the States, but they do not contain one third of the people.
s
Add New York and Connecticut to the foregoing seven, and they will still be less than a majority.
t
This statement of the matter is taken from the printed collections of state constitutions. Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two which contain the interdiction in these words: “As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, THEY OUGHT NOT to be kept up.” This is, in truth, rather a CAUTION than a PROHIBITION. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware and Maryland have, in each of their bills of rights, a clause to this effect: “Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE;” which is a formal admission of the authority of the legislature. New York has no bill of rights, and her constitution says not a word about the matter. No bills of rights appear annexed to the constitutions of the other states, and their constitutions are equally silent. I am told, however, that one or two states have bills of rights, which do not appear in this collection; but that those also recognize the right of the legislative authority in this respect.
u
The sophistry which has been employed, to show that this will tend to the destruction of the state governments will, in its proper place, be fully detected.
v
Its full efficacy will be examined hereafter.
w
The New England states.
x
Connecticut and Rhode Island.
y
Declaration of Independence.
z
The King.
aa
The constitution of this state has been since altered.
ab
The constitution of this state has been since altered.
ac
Burgh’s Political Disquisitions.
ad
1st Clause, 4th Section of the 1st Article.
ae
Particularly in the southern states and in this state.
af
In that of New Jersey, also, the final judiciary authority is in a branch of the legislature. In New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, one branch of the legislature is the court for the trial of impeachments.
ag
See Cato, No. 5.
ah
Article 1, Sec. 3, Clause 1.
ai
Vide Federal Farmer.
aj
A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY, has asserted that the king of Great Britain owes his prerogatives, as commander in chief, to an annual mutiny bill. The truth is, on the contrary, that his prerogative, in this respect, is immemorial, and was only disputed, “contrary to all reason and precedent,” as Blackstone, vol. 1, page 262, expresses it, by the long parliament of Charles First; but by the statute the 13th of Charles Second, chap. 6, it was declared to be in the king alone, for that the sole supreme government and command of the militia within his majesty’s realms and dominions, and of all forces by sea and land, and of all forts and places of strength, EVER WAS AND is the undoubted right of his majesty and his royal predecessors kings and queens of England, and that both or either house of parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same.
ak
Vide Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 1, page 257.
al
Candour however demands an acknowledgment, that I do not think the claim of the governor to a right of nomination well founded. Yet it is always justifiable to reason from the practice of a government, till its propriety has been constitutionally questioned. And independent of this claim, when we take into view the other considerations, and pursue them through all their consequences, we shall be inclined to draw much the same conslusion.
am
New York has no council except for the single purpose of appointing to offices; New Jersey has a council, whom the governor may consult. But I think, from the terms of the constitution, their resolutions do not bind him.
Other books
The Missing Piece by Kevin Egan
Rivals for Love by Barbara Cartland
Three's a Charm by Michkal, Sydney
Gluttony: A Dictionary for the Indulgent by Adams Media Corporation
Jennifer Roberson by Lady of the Glen
Beyond Belief by Cami Ostman
Summer in Sorrento by Melissa Hill
Light Shaper by Albert Nothlit
Bending the Rules: Breaking the Rules #2 by Lewis, L.K.
Hidden Devotion
by
Lila Dubois