Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
The Federalist Papers
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
"The Best 'Worst President'" by Mark Hannah and Bob Staake
A noted political commentator and renowned New Yorker illustrator team up to give Barack Obama the victory lap he deserves. Learn more
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Top Customer Reviews
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were written by Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), John Jay (1745-1829), and James Madison (1751-1835). Due to concerns about the New York State legislators ratifying the The U.S. Constitution, these papers were journal pieces written to New York journals and newspapers to convince both the residents and state legislators to ratify The U.S. Constitution. One should note there were other published articles supporting ratification of The U.S. Constitution and other articles can be read in a text titled FRIENDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
What is alarming about THE FEDERALISTS PAPERS is that they were written for most readers. If one were to write such articles these days, most Americans would not read them nor comprehend them. This is a sad commentary on Americans regarding serious political writing regarding their birthright. If THE FEDERALIST PAPERS were assigned to high school kids, whoever would make such an assignment would be fired or worse.
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS give important explanations of the separation of powers, limits of each branch of the central government (The Federal Government), and how political power should be used within severe limitations. These articles were a brilliant attempt to mitigate fears that The U.S.Read more ›
On the minus side, I do miss Rossiter's introduction. It wasn't as good for laying out the plan of the work, but it should have been included (along with Kessler's) for its excellent overview of the contemporary situation and the philosophy behind the papers. Also, I feel that Rossiter's contents were slightly better than Kessler's. And, the page numbers are changed, invalidating older references to them. But all in all it's an improvement, and certainly the Mentor edition is the only one to have. Period. It's the one used by at least some of the Supreme Court Justices, and it retains that single dominating feature, Rossiter's cross-referenced Constitution (and index of ideas).
As for the Papers themselves, of course, they need no review. They are the first and ultimate Constitutional commentary, and fascinating reading besides. As literature they stand out for the exceptional style (all the more remarkable considering the haste in which they were written) and clear thinking, and more than any other book they define how the U.S. _should_ work.
All in all, this is one of the best book bargains on the market, that rare coincidence where best edition meets mass-market paperback. What are you waiting for?
The issue with the Federalist Papers is that although it is the leading arguments for the creation of a more centralized government (to replace the Articles of Confederation which seemed inpractible), not all of these arguments were adopted in the Constitution, and some that were did not survive very long. As a result, you may get the wrong impression that the Federalist Papers=the Constitution. Remember, Hamilton's party, the Federalists, did not survive much longer after the defeat of Adams by Jefferson in the 1800 election. The populism of Jefferson and Madison were the ultimate winners *at the time*.
And my *at the time* comment is important. Nowadays the federal government of the US holds a superior and decisive position in the governing of its people; this has not always been the case. In the early-to-mid 19th century, federal power was severely limited when it came to internal affairs; most of the government was conducted at the local level, with some county and state control thrown in where applicable. So *at the time*, the fact that the Senate had 2 members from each state (and appointed by the state legislature) regardless of population was *not* a measure that was anti-democratic in purpose. Democracy existed because the government was predominantly local and the people were predominantly involved in its affairs.Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
For those interested in our constitution, and the founding of our country, and what the founders intended the role of the federal government to be, this is a MUST read.Published 10 hours ago by Byron Whitesides
Like all books and papers from that era, a little hard to get the meaning on your first read, but a good picture of the extent of views to get the populace to support the... Read morePublished 1 day ago by MaxM
Great, very interesting. It is good to go back and see what they were thinking when they set our country up.Published 1 day ago by A Music Fan