listen to the audio clip, and then choose the best answer to each question.

The Federalist Papers
article by Theresa Netherton

(1)In October 1787, a series of essays began to appear in several New York newspapers. They were printed under the title “The Federalist,” and the author was someone named Publius. Who was Publius, and what did he have to say?

(2)The Roman name Publius was chosen by Alexander Hamilton as a pseudonym1 for a series of articles he planned to write explaining the federal Constitution proposed by the Constitutional Convention. He hoped these articles would encourage New York lawmakers to ratify, or approve, the Constitution.

(3)Hamilton had good reason to believe that this Constitution might not be approved. The Continental Congress had permitted a federal convention to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” The delegates to the convention did a great deal more than that, however. They wrote an entirely new document, which they called the Constitution of the United States of America. This Constitution gave the Congress much more power than it had under the Articles of Confederation.

(4)Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress did not have the power to raise money by taxing the states. There was no provision for raising enough money to pay the country’s debts or to maintain an army and navy for the nation’s defense. The Articles of Confederation did not allow the government to issue money, so each state had its own coins and paper money. This was very confusing for merchants and business people who sold goods to, or bought them from, more than one state.

(5)Alexander Hamilton was one of fifty-five delegates who met to consider what should be done about this weak system of government. Twelve of the thirteen states sent representatives; Rhode Island did not wish to participate.

(6)Hamilton was a Federalist. He and some of the other delegates believed that a strong, centralized form of government was best for the United States. The Federalists felt that the United States had to be strong and independent in order to trade with, and protect itself from, other powerful nations such as France and England. They believed that the United States was weak and ineffective with thirteen individual states doing whatever they pleased.

(7)Many of the delegates, called Antifederalists, disagreed with the Federalists. They believed in the principle of States’ rights. These men feared that a strong central government might become too powerful and that it might even establish a monarchy (a state ruled by a king or queen). The country had just fought the Revolutionary War to free itself from this type of government.

(8)The Grand Convention (we know it as the Constitutional Convention) met almost daily for four months. The delegates spoke passionately in favor of their beliefs. There were arguments, debates, and compromises. When they finally concluded on September 17, 1787, the document they signed was not the revised Articles of Confederation that the Continental Congress had asked them to write. It was a brand new Constitution. This Constitution was to become effective as soon as nine of the thirteen states ratified it. The delegates returned to their home states to argue for, or against, ratification.

(9)Hamilton’s state of New York strongly opposed the Constitution. He knew he had to work quickly to influence the state’s lawmakers to ratify it. He asked for help from two friends: James Madison, a delegate from Virginia (later known as the “father of the Constitution”), and John Jay, secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation.

(10)All three men were skillful writers. They published a series of newspaper articles explaining how the Constitution would work and how it would improve the government. In seven months, eighty-five articles appeared. Fifty-one of these were written by Hamilton himself. The Federalist Papers, as these articles were collectively called, also were published in two books.

(11)The government of New York eventually gave in, and New York became the eleventh state to ratify the Constitution. We do not know for certain how much the legislators were influenced by The Federalist Papers, but we do know that these papers are still studied today by the president, Congress, and Supreme Court.

(12)The Federalist Papers are an important source of information in understanding the U.S. Constitution. They help us interpret the Constitution and decide how it applies to our lives today. Without this work by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, it would be very difficult to know what the Founding Fathers had in mind two hundred years ago when they prepared a document that Americans still live by today.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1pseudonym: an imaginary name used by an author who does not wish to use his or her real name. Sometimes called a pen name.

from Federalist No. 45: The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
public document by James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

(1)HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate1 from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious2 doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?

(2)It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance3 the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy4 of the last than of the first scale.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1derogate: take away; detract
2impious: lacking due respect or dutifulness
3discountenance: view with disfavor
4preponderancy: superiority in influence or force

Audio Clip: from Centinel No. 1
public document by Samuel Bryan
narrated by Brian Amador

This narration of an Antifederalist Paper published on October 5, 1787, questions whether the federal Constitution would have a positive impact on the citizens of Pennsylvania.

 

-:---:--

Question
How does the tone of “Federalist No. 45” contrast with the tone of “Centinel No. 1”?
Responses

“Federalist No. 45” is philosophical, while “Centinel No. 1” is pragmatic.
“Federalist No. 45” is philosophical, while “Centinel No. 1” is pragmatic.

“Federalist No. 45” is conversational, while “Centinel No. 1” is agitated.
“Federalist No. 45” is conversational, while “Centinel No. 1” is agitated.

“Federalist No. 45” is concerned, while “Centinel No. 1” is detached.
“Federalist No. 45” is concerned, while “Centinel No. 1” is detached.

“Federalist No. 45” is logical, while “Centinel No. 1” is impassioned.
“Federalist No. 45” is logical, while “Centinel No. 1” is impassioned.
Skip to navigation