The Federalist (Everyman Paperback Classics) [Paperback]

Alexander Hamilton (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0460871846 | ISBN-13: 978-0460871846 | Publication Date: October 15, 1992

"The Federalist was the first noteworthy treatise on federal government...a dignifeid and worthy commentary upon the creation of the greatest federal constitution that the world has yet seen, that of the United States." It consists of 85 articles contributed anonymously to New York Journals from the autumn of 1787 to the spring of 1788; their purpose was to persuade the people of New York to ratify the Consitution which had just been drawn up by the convention. The author of each essay is here named at the head; Jay was responsible for only five of the earliest, Hamilton and Madison for the rest.

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

The work known as The Federalist was initially published as newspaper installations throughout 1787 and 1788. The "Gideon" edition was published in 1818 and includes corrections to earlier editions by James Madison and Hamilton. This version includes those texts plus a new introduction, notes, a glossary, and the complete Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, and U.S. Constitution with cross references. A high-quality, scholarly edition for a great price.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

Review

"The present edition . . . is the most complete and accurate that has yet appeared . . . Everyone who is interested in either the principles or the practice of government--in the age of the Fathers or in our own era of perplexity--should read it in part at least."--Dumas Malone, History Book Club Review

"Cooke studied the text of the complete Federalist, and happily for scholars, he determined to print this separate edition embodying his discoveries. He ends at last our previous ignorance in two important areas: first, in recording the printing history of the individual essays in the four New York papers where they originally appeared; second, in reporting all the changes the Publius (Hamilton and Madison) made (or sanctioned) in the primary newspaper text when it was reissued in book form in 1788, 1802 and 1817. Cooke's edition, thus, is the first definitive, variorum edition of the text of this much reprinted classic."--Douglas Adair, The William and Mary Quarterly --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 468 pages
• Publisher: Orion Publishing Group, Ltd. (October 15, 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0460871846
• ISBN-13: 978-0460871846
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 5.1 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,281,763 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars At Least Five Stars, May 24, 2005

By 

Reader (Arlington, Virginia) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: The Federalist (Hardcover)

The Federalist was an astonishing political document. Written for public consumption during the debate over adoption of the U.S. Constitution, it combined immense learning and sophistication with shrewd insights into the nature of politics in a republic. It's an essential text for anyone interested in American political history or constitutional theory. In fact, the Federalist should be essential readingt for any educated American: it remains an unparalleled example of realistic political analysis being placed in the service of political ideals.

After more than 200 years, the Federalist has lost little of its relevance. The sections on judicial review and Presidential nominations, for example, could have been written about current controversies over judges. Likewise, the discussion of Presidential war powers, or the emphasis on checks and balances as essential to the preservation of liberty, are eerily topical in an age of pre-emptive war and one-party control of Washington. Even when the analysis is wildly dated -- as with the Commerce Clause or slavery -- the reader can see how far Constitutional doctrine has wandered from the "intent" of the Founders.

The Federalist is also superb as literature: the writing is droll and eloquent, once you get used to the long, convoluted sentences. The introduction by Benjamin Wright is excellent and helps to place the text in political and intellectual context. I don't know why I wasn't forced to read the Federalist at law school! Six stars.

Note: Contrary to one review below, God is hardly mentioned in the Federalist, and then only as a rhetorical flourish. The Federalist has countless references to ancient Greece and Rome, but none to the Old or New Testaments. It is a thoroughly secular document. Religious nationalists and other conservatives should actually read it.

5.0 out of 5 stars Great Book - Must read, January 14, 2012

By 

Paul C. Darrigo (Los Angeles) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Federalist (Great Minds Series) (Paperback)

This is an excellent book. The text is larger and easier to read. The material itself is excellent in understanding the reasoning behind the constitution, realizing it's not some fast contrived, living breathing document but a well thought and meticulously designed Frame for our Country for everyone.

11 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars History, Veneration and The Federalist, July 3, 2005

By 

greg taylor (Portland, Oregon United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: Federalist, The (Hardcover)

We want our founders to be demi-gods and our original texts to be divinely inspired. For an example of this nonsense, please see the first review on this page.
I want to offer a vision of The Federalist in historical context. I will argue that to see it thus enlarges its greatness will allowing us to admit its faults.
In many ways, the developments that led to the Constitution of 1787 started as soon as colonists reached our eastern shores. We had at least 150 years of experimentation in writing charters and in representative governance behind us by 1787. After the Declaration of Independence the States either wrote new constitutions or reaffirmed old charters. The national government wrote the Articles of Confederation and we lived under that from 1781 to the late 1780s.
The Federalist should be seen as part of that ongoing development. More specifically, it should be seen as part of the ratification debates in New York. Largely written by Madison and Hamilton, these papers reflect the compromises that the founders made in regards to the Constitution. Madison had wanted the President to have a veto over any state laws. Hamilton had favored a President for life during good behavior (read #78 in re the appointment for life of federal judges to sense the fervor that Hamilton felt for the benefits of lifetime tenure). Neither man believed in the necessity of a Bill of Rights. Madison eventually saw the political necessity of such amendments. During the first United States Congress he wrote up the Bill of Rights and guided them through passage. This way he could make sure they did not grow too numerous.
As a whole then The Federalist should be seen as rhetorical and political arguments for passage of a Constitution that the authors had some doubts about.
Of course, as Publius they could express no doubts. Madison, Hamiltion and Jay used this pseudonym which was a typical rhetorical device of elite writers at the time. (See Saul Cornell's The Other Founders for a nice discussion of the variety of rhetorical strategies used by writers during the ratification debates.) The idea was that hiding their identities would allow readers to focus on the quality of their arguments. As a result, there are many passages that can strike the modern reader as duplicitous because Publius pretends to know nothing of what went on during the convention. Madison and Hamilton, of course, were instrumental throughout the Constitutional Convention.
Publius works his explication of the need for the Constitution by critiquing the Articles of Confederation then by going thru the new document, article by article supposedly answering all objections. His counterarguments are largely of two types. In the first type, he will state a political principle so "obvious" that any "candid" reader will instantly agree to it. Publius then builds his arguments from there. The famous paper #10 is one such chain of argument. Or Publius will demolish the arguments offered against the Constitution by pointing out that the article objected to is contained in some or many of the States' constitution and have resulted in no such problems. Many of these arguments are justly famous. Number 10 is very much worth reading. (Although I still find it curious that when Madison asserts that a man's property holdings has a great influence on the way he thinks it is celebrated as political realism but when Marx says much the same thing it is decried as class warfare. But that's just me.)
But the reader really does get a sense at to how much thought went into the various checks and balances and the competing claims of the states and the new national government. To me this is where the glory of the book lies. We as a people thought our way out of the failure of our first experiment in nation building. We avoided civil war (for a while) and did not become the victims of foreign manipulation. We don't have to make our founding fathers and mothers demi-gods. In their fully flawed humanity, they dazzle aplenty.
Finally, it should be noted that The Federalist as a piece of political rhetoric avoided some issues entirely. The main problem that most Anti-Federalists had with the proposed Constitution in re jury rights had to do with the following phrase: "such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed" (Article 3, Sec.2, Para. 3). Whig thought at that time insisted on juries being as local as possible. Blackstone stated that jury trials should be held within the county of the crime. This guaranteed that local knowledge of the crime, the defendant and the victim would be maximized in the jury pool. Trying cases in distant jurisdictions or without juries had been some of the main provocations of the British prior to the revolution. Men like Patrick Henry saw that phrase in the Constitution as a clarion of the tyranny to come from the new national government. The Federalist does not speak to this issue at all. Instead, Hamilton focuses on arguments about whether jury trials are guaranteed for civil cases and even has Publius argue that maybe we should limit jury trials a little because juries are so bad with complicated issues, blah, blah.
Should all Americans read this book? Yeah, probably. Are we the worse if they don't? Again, probably yes, but what we really need as a people is more of a sense of our history. I would rather have more people read a good series of books on our history as a whole (I recommend the Oxford History of the United States as one excellent ongoing series).
But if you want to get to know two great minds at work on political issues that are still relevant then this is your book. Forget Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. Their philosophies are antiquarian in a way that Publius is not.