5.0 out of 5 stars. Very well done. Skip the Glenn Beck book and read this instead.
Amazon Review in on January 26, 2023
[I’ve copied this review off Amazon because it is such a perfect description of The Federalist Papers. I’ve put the link to the review below the article.]
A buddy recommended a modern translation of the Federalist Papers by a college student https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004QWZ5R6/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title, with as it turns out, forwards to each chapter by Glenn Beck, who is therefore credited as the author. The Beck book translated 33 of the 85 papers. I only got 3 papers in before I pretty quickly realized that Glenn Beck wasn't really interested in the Federalist papers, other than as a platform to pander to his television audience. It made me question the veracity of the translations, and why only those 33 were picked, so I went back to Amazon and looked for a full translation, with no editorialization. I found this, which is impressive, and as a bonus, also includes the constitution. I went back to the original papers several times to see how they compared, and I was very impressed. The author managed to both modernize and slightly condense the language, which has been nice, although it still has a very formal, bullet list feel. However, like the constitution, it's a surprisingly quick read.
I have to say, this has been a real eye opener. For those not familiar, the constitution as signed in 1787 was not by any means a slam dunk, as we might think. The Federalist papers were articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. The collection was commonly known as The Federalist until the name The Federalist Papers emerged in the 20th century. The purpose was to convince the people of this proposed republic to ratify the constitution as written.
You really have to read these papers to believe what incredible students of human nature these very young founders were. In the context of modern events, I couldn't believe the way they talked about "factions", whose influence they sought to derail, with our constitutional republic. You'll think I'm kidding, but they almost talk about groups like the Oath Keepers by name. These young founders were so prescient that it's almost scary to read what they had to say. Extremist groups had clearly been the norm throughout history, which is why governments never lasted. They wanted to create a government so ponderous and thoughtful as to be almost painful, as a counterpoint to this often violent extremism. In the age of the internet, when we want it all and we want it now, I can see why so many find their vision so hard to bear. It was interesting that Xi Jinping said as much to Biden.
What was said about religion in one of the early papers was interesting. They noted that it was providence that they were uniting a country that had just one language and one religion, but they saw that even religion as they knew it was well fractured by that point, which had caused so much conflict in Europe. They were worried about any and all extreme views, and recognized how easily religion could turn into an extreme faction, or in our vernacular - be weaponized, which is why they saw fit to create such a hard separation between church and state. It was interesting to read elsewhere how many of the founders were deists, rather than traditional Christians, which may have played into their thinking.
One thing I also have to add is that if you read the Federalist Papers thinking they will give you clarity on specific issues, you will likely be disappointed. I was particularly interested in essay #29, as it is often held up as the closest example of the intent of the second amendment. It was in fact, about as clear as mud. As with the second amendment, one can be an originalist and take away just about any position you want. I found the same thing with the concept of Judicial Review. Hamilton is clear that the founders expected the Supreme Court to examine laws in the context of the Constitution, but not what this meant with respect to legal enforcement.
One of the most interesting things in the documents were the arguments for not splitting up into individual states, or even two or four confederacies, since they could see even then how tempting that might be. They expected that at any point in time several states would go rogue and become extremist, but they thought that being part of a larger union would allow the other states to keep this extremist behavior under control. They weren't just worried about a civil war - they saw it coming, and did what they could to avert it. It just wasn't enough. They recognized that the weaker rural southern states needed the northern states for protection and economic support, and hoped that this might keep them in line.
It was also interesting reading about the distinction between National and Federal governments. We have a little of each, and a lot of both. For example, the House of Representatives is a national body, with representatives technically not directly affiliated with the states, whereas the senate is a Federal body, since its power comes directly from the states. An interesting and important distinction. Since legislatures by their nature have the most power in a republic, they felt this combination would help keep that power in check. Along those lines, while they wanted the three branches to be independent, they also wanted to slightly intertwine them. None are truly independent of the others.
They did specifically address one thing I have often wondered about, which is why they didn't require legislation to need a supermajority to become law. I always felt we might have better laws if we required more than just a simple majority, since majorities often get things wrong, but supermajorities rarely do. However, they recognized that when you require a supermajority, you are more often than not ceding control to a minority to pass any legislation, and more than anything, they were concerned about extremist minorities wielding too much power. So while they wanted to make things difficult and ponderous, they did not want minority factions to exercise too much control. They were of course concerned about protecting minority groups against majority factions, but to my surprise, the restraint of extremist minorities is actually a much more dominant theme in all the Federalist papers.
One of the more interesting quotes came from Madison, in paper #63, "That liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former rather than the latter is apparently most to be apprehended by the United States." I found their recognition that the biggest danger to Liberty comes from Liberty just fascinating, as it's something we see played out almost daily. Back in the 60's this came from the left, but now it seems to come mostly from the right. The leader of every faction wants to believe they are leading the next great revolution. But as we know, politics isn't a straight line, it's a circle, with the far left and the far right both wanting the same things - power and control.
[see the review: Very well done. Skip the Glenn Beck book and read this instead. (amazon.com)]
The Federalist Papers: Modern English Edition Two: Webster, Mary E.: 9781434842190: Amazon.com: Books
I haven't figured out yet how to get paid subscribers. I'll check it out tomorrow and get back to you. Thanks for asking.
Mary, please send to me a link to be a paid subscriber. I am having trouble on your page finding anything but free subscriber. Do you see me subscribed to any of your publications? Maybe I subscribed thru some other portal? Thank you. Beth