• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federalist Papers

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
*I posted here because it is a general question*

Does anyone have a pdf. or link to a free downloadable pdf. file of the Federalist Papers?

I found a pdf., but it is a scan of the book, and that is not what I want.

Thank you in advance.

Sara Mae
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,,

Everyone,

Please remember not to rely on the federalist papers to much. They were a series of opinion pieces published in newspapers. It was essentially a PR campaign.

The Anti-federalist papers are an interesting read also.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm

Also, here is a site with those documents and others.
http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm



way to discount what the federalists and their "papers" accomplished!

the papers in the "PR campaign" were responsible for convincing the
original 13 states to ratify the constitution!
they were also responsible for THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
until the federalists wrote the BORs, and demanded their inclusion,
the states didnt want to accept and ratify the the constitution!
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
way to discount what the federalists and their "papers" accomplished!

the papers in the "PR campaign" were responsible for convincing the
original 13 states to ratify the constitution!
they were also responsible for THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
until the federalists wrote the BORs, and demanded their inclusion,
the states didnt want to accept and ratify the the constitution!


I don't think I said anything negative at all, I just stated fact. My intent was to clarify what the federalist papers were. I had no intent to discredit them.

Many of those who were very influential during the revolution (Patrick Henry for example) did not want the new constitution to be ratified and wanted to simply amend the Articles Of Confederation.
They feared that the Constitution would take away to much State sovereignty, and individual liberty, and would allow the centeral government to become to powerful and basically make the president like a king.

It is true that the Bill Of Rights was introduced by a federalist (James Madison) but it was done to help ease some of the concerns raised by the Anti-federalists.

Not all of the Federalists were liberty minded. Alexander Hamilton was a despot and a tyrant. He wanted a monarchy in America and wanted a King appointed for life to run this country. He also advocated for a central bank and for standing armies.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
Everyone,

Please remember not to rely on the federalist papers to much. They were a series of opinion pieces published in newspapers. It was essentially a PR campaign.

The Anti-federalist papers are an interesting read also.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm

Also, here is a site with those documents and others.
http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm


Beretta92FSLady never said she was going to rely on them.
Or that she was going to place more value on them than on anything else she read.
Or that she didn't understand the context in which they were introduced.
She simply asked for a link.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Everyone,

Please remember not to rely on the federalist papers to much. They were a series of opinion pieces published in newspapers. It was essentially a PR campaign.

The Anti-federalist papers are an interesting read also.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm

Also, here is a site with those documents and others.
http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

The Federalist Papers explained the reasoning behind our Constitution, the intent of the Founders, and how they saw the Republic working.

I do rely on them for these understandings instead of the writings of the losers of the debate.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Beretta92FSLady never said she was going to rely on them.
Or that she was going to place more value on them than on anything else she read.
Or that she didn't understand the context in which they were introduced.
She simply asked for a link.


Very true, that is why I attempted to make it clear that I was not directing my comments at her.
I started my post with the word "everyone", had I meant to direct my comments to her I would have started it with her name.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
The Federalist Papers explained the reasoning behind our Constitution, the intent of the Founders, and how they saw the Republic working..........
(my underline)



I feel that "Framers" would be a better word to use here.
I consider the Founders to be those who advocated and/or declared Independence.
The framers were the ones who wrote the Constitution. All the Framers were founders, but not all founders were framers.
Some of our founders did not agree with the Constitution.

.......I do rely on them for these understandings instead of the writings of the losers of the debate.
Fair enough,
My main point was that there are things to be learned from the anti-federalists as well. They brought up some good points during the debate, some of the concerns expressed caused changes to be made in the constitution that helped lead to ratification.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
This is why the federalist and anti-federalist papers are important.

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823



Not saying anyone believes (here) they aren't important but I believe this quote in particular lays it out well.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The Founders founded our Republic as it currently exists. The Constitution defines the Republic. It was made possible by the War of Independence, and, therefore, those who brought about Independence are Founders also, even if they opposed the Constitution. But the "Founders," for the most part, were the authors and advocates of the Constitution.

It is they to whom I look when exploring the intent behind the Constitution, which I believe perfected the Republic. Reliance on the Constitution and the words of its Founders is the key to restoring our Republic.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Everyone,

Please remember not to rely on the federalist papers to much. They were a series of opinion pieces published in newspapers. It was essentially a PR campaign.

The Anti-federalist papers are an interesting read also.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm

Also, here is a site with those documents and others.
http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

I found the anti-Federalist Papers. For some reason it was a bigger pain to find a pdf. of the Federalist Papers...not sure why.

Thank you for the links.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The Federalist Papers explained the reasoning behind our Constitution, the intent of the Founders, and how they saw the Republic working.

I do rely on them for these understandings instead of the writings of the losers of the debate.

Oh, I rarely do anymore. If anything, they explained what the Federalists wanted the readers to believe. There is plenty of valid information; but there is hogwash, too. These were not scholarly reports; I would give them only slightly better credibility than the legislative intent statements that precede federal statutes.

Separately, a notable convention attendee expressly stated at the close of the convention that he was convinced the constitution would not work: one of the most famous men in the country--Ben Franklin. Google for his closing address to the constitutional convention.

I'm thinking the main use for the Federalist Papers is they give us "promises" we can demand be kept. We just have to keep track of which were useful "promises" and which weren't. And, hunt up the problems with the constitution--since the Federalist Papers don't mention them. Oh, no. Such is not to be found in a sales pitch.

The whole point is to see through what author Kenneth Royce calls "parchment idolatry". We are raised to believe the constitution is the greatest thing since sliced bread. While it unquestionably had/has benefits, it does no good to put it or the Framers on pedestals, blinding ourselves to serious faults.

As for the losers in the debates, the so-called anti-Federalists, while they lost Round One, history has proven them correct. The fedgov grew just as they said it would into a leviathin. Personally, I consider they won The Debate by being right.

For a fresh perspective on this, buy and read Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce.

As Royce quotes Lysander Spooner from No Treason (1870). "The constitution...either gave us the government we have,...or was powerless to stop it." (Full disclosure: I have hunted for those quote fragments in No Treason. Haven't found them yet. The ellipsises would indicate they are not all from the same sentence, but form an overall concept extracted from separate sentences, paragraphs, or even chapters. Nonetheless, the point is valid.)

Just ask yourselves, "who benefited most from people believing the Federalist Papers?" The convention attendees, some 30-40% of who ended up in the new governement, including 2/3 of the authors of the Federalist Papers? The Federalists who within a short period would give us the first bald-faced violation of the Bill of Rights by way of the Alien and Sedition Acts? The Federalists who were voted out of Congress, essentially destroying that party, while voting power to the Jefferson and the Republicans?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP It is true that the Bill Of Rights was introduced by a federalist (James Madison) but it was done to help ease some of the concerns raised by the Anti-federalists.

Well, since ETF is being polite, I'll take the hard-hitting approach.

Madison drafted the Bill of Rights for one of two reasons that I'll explain in a minute. Neither of the reasons were because he wanted them. During the ratification period when the state's were considering the constitution, the anti-Federalists and like-minded people were raising a stink, or point it out. It threatened to derail ratification.

The Federalists argued against a Bill of Rights. One argument was that since the government had limited powers, there was no need for a Bill of Rights. Yeah, right. We have a Bill of Rights, and look how we are treated by the fedgov's three branches. Even with a Bill of Rights, the Federalists gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts. No need for a Bill of Rights they said during the ratification period. Yeah, hang onto that dream. Those men were nowhere near that stupid as to not know how politics is played.

Madison is on record as considering the Bill of Rights, "this odious business".

Oh, don't forget that Madison was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. (Why call them "papers"? Why not just call them what they were: "letters" to the editor? "Papers" sounds so much more important, doesn't it. Much more credible.)

So, with all the racket from the anti-Federalists about the problems with the constitution, Madison figured he had to do something. I am of the opinion that he wrote the Bill of Rights for one of two reasons:

1) He figured it would shut up enough anti-Federalists that ratification would proceed.

2) He foresaw that by giving a Bill of Rights, the dumber resisters would be satisfied, and the senior anti-Federalists would be undermined in their remaining arguments against the constitution. (This is what actually occurred. The lack of a Bill of Rights was the main talking point to rally the population. There were/are even bigger problems with the constition. These problems were of even greater concern to the senior anti-Federalists. But, when Madison got the Bill of Rights put through, enough of the simpler-minded were satisfied that the constitution then went through, otherwise unchanged. Meaning the other changes desired by anti-Federalists never occurred. Writing the Bill of Rights totally undermined and nullified the anti-Federalists and their other, bigger concerns.) Meaning, Madison deftly undercut real changes in the constitution that he preferred to avoid.

So, much for the guy we were all taught to revere as "The Father of the Bill of Rights"--James Madison. The real fathers of the Bill of Rights are Patrick Henry, George Mason, and a few others who did the demanding that finally pushed a resistant Madison into asking the states to submit lists of proposed rights from which he culled the Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Citizen,
That's an interesting perspective and something I've thought of from time to time. You're right of course that the Federalist Papers were a sales pitch. However; even because of that, they offer insight into what the people of the time wanted, of course, not necessarily what the authors thought.

Other than the sets of papers I like reading the various addresses and quotes of the time and in doing so find the basic ideals of some of the founders; Jefferson being my favorite.

It's obvious that the constitution did NOT work. If everyone followed the rules it pretty much would have but there aren't enough checks and balances to force that. A fun exercise might be to write a new one to see if we could make one better. Who knows, ours might not work after 200 years of usurpation either.
 
Top