Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

The Articles of Confederation was failing the young country. The risk that the states would break apart was real.

The newly proposed Constitution needed a public defense to sway delegates.

Alexander Hamilton proposed a series of essays published in newspapers. There were to be 25.

85 Federalist Papers in total

Hamilton wrote 51 (all while practicing law and serving as a NY congressional representative)

James Madison wrote 29 (although there was disputed authorship of some between him and Hamilton)

John Jay, later chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote 5. He wrote 4 of the first 5 before getting sick. Then he wrote #64 before getting struck by a brick in an NYC riot in April 1788.

The authors were a secret until Hamilton's death in 1804. The authors collectively chose to be called "Publius" after the Roman Publius Valerius Publicola who was key to the founding of the Roman republic.

Key words: republic, democracy, faction, passion, union, confederacy

Key questions:

What is a republic?

What is its best size and makeup?

How can liberty be protected?

How can it be lost?

How can the people's interests be fairly represented?

The bright view of these documents is that the Federalist Papers are attempting a grand balancing act between majority and minority rights between the rule of the people and stability.

The Federalist Papers argued that the newly proposed Constitution was the best way to make a nation of the many states while preserving local and individual liberty simultaneously.

The darker view is that the Federalist Papers suffer from what one political theorist called "pervasive ambivalence." They wanted it both ways: majority-wins elections and safeguards against majoritarian tyranny. By trying to be all things to all people, the arguments of the Federalist Papers are a bit unclear and their legacy to subsequent generations of Americans is a bit muddied.

To understand the arguments of the Federalist Papers, it is essential understand the context of the new nation, especially the failures of the Articles of Confederation, but it is also essential to understand prevailing political philosophy of the day. One of the most important figures, someone mentioned frequently in the Papers, is Montesquieu, a French philosopher of democracy.

Most importantly for the authors of the Federalist Papers, he thought democracies had to be small to work. He thought democracy could only work in a specific, confined area that was limited to a relatively small and homogenous group of people. He thought a democracy covering lots of territory and including lots of different people was doomed to civil war or to be taken over by a wealthy tyrant.

Montesquieu: "It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist."

Large republics had "men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation" who would make themselves 'glorious' by oppressing their fellow citizens.

"In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents.’ In a small one, ‘the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected."

So, to win the day and persuade the country to pass the new Constitution, the Federalist Paper authors had to defeat Montesquieu.

How did they think you might keep a large country together? How did they answer Montesquieu?

The Federalist Papers

Baron de Montesquieu (Charles Louis de Secondat)

He developed ideas of...

Civil Liberties

Suspicion of expansive government power

Separation of powers / checks and balances

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi