# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  The federalist papers

## IRO-bot

I keep hearing everyone saying this is a must read.  So I decided I am going to read it.  If anyone is interested in it.  This is the link.

http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3130

I just wanted to share this little piece from Alexander Hamilton.  I was honestly getting a little teared up by it.  These great men, our founding fathers, were so WISE it was almost as if they really could see the future.


It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; *and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government*. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

----------


## foofighter20x

> It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; *commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.*


Starting out as demagogues, and ending up as tyrants, he says?

Giuliani, anyone? AMIRITE, or AMIRITE?

----------


## IRO-bot

I was leaning more towards most people who run the county.  Like Bush.  If your not for everything he does your not patriotic.  It's irony.  We were warned at the time of CONCEPTION of our Union that these events are possible and we need to be cautious.

----------


## foofighter20x

Yeah... I always feel a righteous victory when I debate on other boards and pull out the founders and I'm like "Dude, they saw your argument coming from over 200 years away!"

----------


## IRO-bot

> Yeah... I always feel a righteous victory when I debate on other boards and pull out the founders and I'm like "Dude, they saw your argument coming from over 200 years away!"


Just makes you want to say BOOYAH!!!!!

----------


## jblosser

Heh.  No offense, but y'all need to read again what is being said.  Hamilton's point is that it's the people who are opposed to government involvment that are dangerous, not the people that think government order is necessary.

If you read the Federalist, you need to also read the Anti-Federalist.  These two were written back and forth at each other, during the period when the people opposed to any strong central government were arguing that we shouldn't adopt the Constitution, and the peopele in favor of a stronger central government were arguing for the Constitution.  While it's true that we here stand in _support_ of the Constitution, you need to understand that in relative terms and realize that it was the anti-federalists who were arguing our position at that time.   It was the anti-federalist concerns that resulted in the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Not all of the founding fathers were on the same side on liberty issues, though you can at least give them the benfeit of the doubt since they hadn't yet seen what the result of their experiments would be.  Hamilton was a huge proponent of things like the Central Bank (the predecessor to the Fed) and loved to argue that the anti-federalists were paranoid conspiracy theorists and that the government would be fine and take care of us all (sound familiar?).  The anti-federalists argued various likely afronts to liberty that would arise as people tried to manipulate the Constitution, and yes, history shows they were right.  This doesn't mean we shouldn't work to get back to the Constitution, but we should definitely learn from history.

----------


## Noodles

I was waiting to see who would point that out...

----------


## IRO-bot

Point taken.  I am merely in the 4th paper.  Written by John Jay.  So i don't have the full picture yet.  I am just looking at pieces that are so relevent to today.

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war.


This piece is neat.  Invite hostility or insult.  Hmmmmm....

----------


## foofighter20x

> Heh.  No offense, but y'all need to read again what is being said.  Hamilton's point is that it's the people who are opposed to government involvment that are dangerous, not the people that think government order is necessary.


Nope. I think you are mistaken. He's warning about how people seek office:




> It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.


On one hand, it will be forgotten:
1.) jealousy usually always attends feelings of love; and,
2.) enthusiatic liberty is appropriately infected with much distrust.Or, those who love their liberties will jealously guard them.




> On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.


On the other hand, also will it be forgotten:
1.) the essential justification for government is the security of liberty (rights);
2.) that, in well-thought out policies, the protection of rights as the proper role of government can't be seperated from government action;
3.) an ambitious person will more likely hide behind a mask of support for rights than for more government (this one is a little outdated, now, i think *koff democrats koff koff*; basically, ambitious people will lie to get into office by supporting popular ideas and appeals to emotion, even if they don't really agree with them personally)



> History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.


History shows that more despots come to power under the guise of supporting freedom and liberties and other abstract rhetorical ideas than come to power by supporting instead that the government should do it's job correctly (i.e. secure rights). Most despots came to power by promising/giving the people everything they want. *koff dems! koff koff* They start out as demagogues (by playing on the people's emotions) and end up tyrants once they have power.


Basically, he's warning that you don't elect people who appeal to your emotions, but elect instead those that appeal to your logic.  And logic should dictate that a properly fuctioning government works to secure peoples rights, not solves all of the problems they encounter in life.  Elect a person whose record matches their rhetoric when it comes to liberty, and not the person that promises to give you everything you want.

----------


## Capitalism

> I was leaning more towards most people who run the county.  Like Bush.  If your not for everything he does your not patriotic.  It's irony.  We were warned at the time of CONCEPTION of our Union that these events are possible and we need to be cautious.


Hey! I was told on this board I was not patriotic!

----------


## IRO-bot

> Hey! I was told on this board I was not patriotic!


Oro?  Sarcasm?

----------


## Gigaplex

Another interesting tidbit is that the "federalists" were not actually federalists. They called themselves federalists in order to make it sound like they were the good guys when in fact they were nationalists. Some wanted the same monarchy system from Britain that they just got out of.

A nationalist is someone who wants one strong central government to rule everyone while a federalist is someone who wants many small governments to do most of the governing and one severely limited federal government to tie it all together. The theory is that if you have many small governments, you have competition. If one state gives more freedom and liberty than another, then people flock to it and the other states are forced to emulate or lose all its citizens.

The "anti-federalists" were people that were actually federalists but got the name "anti-federalist" because they opposed the "federalists". The "anti-federalists" argued against the constitution because they didn't think it limited government enough! The "anti-federalists" were libertarians philosophically and they ended up being right about all their predictions of how this government would eventually deteriorate. The "federalists" ended up being wrong in their assumption that government is not that twisted.

Even 200 years ago, there was propaganda.

Keep studying. Our best defense against tyranny is knowledge.

----------


## IRO-bot

Where can I read the "Anti-Federalists" papers?

----------


## torchbearer

Yeh the anti-federlist papers are good. I know you can buy them from Cato. Also, the writing of James Madison are a good source too, I've got many hardbacks from cato. his writings, later published by his wife after his death.. will give you great insight into his contributions to the consitution and early government, it gives you a peak at the original intent... something we need to get back to

----------


## torchbearer

Of course, you should read all the early writings, not just a select few to get the complete picture of what was going on at that time.

----------


## torchbearer

I'm a bit saddened to realise this stuff isn't taught in school... but then again, The Dept. of Education controls curriculum. Why would they want you to learn that they are unconstitutional?

----------


## IRO-bot

Well, I remember in 8th grade we went into DEEP DEEP depth's of the Constitution, and in 7th grade we went DEEP into Missouri's Constituion.  But heck that was like 15 years ago.

I found the Federalist Papers online at Emory Law School.  I was wondering if the Anti was online was well.

----------


## foofighter20x

> Where can I read the "Anti-Federalists" papers?


*http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html*

----------


## IRO-bot

thanks

----------


## jon_e_og

http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html

once you read through the federalist/anti-federalist papers you'll realize why the last century of 'Hamiltonian' rule has been filled with war, economic dislocation, and a balooning of the state...

Hamilton was a bastard son of a Scotish merchant, who was born in the caribbean... (not saying it to degrade him, just stating the facts)

he was Aide de Camp to Washington I believe, and one of Washington's goto guys(go figure)

he was an elitist, trying to ingratiate himself with the aristocracy and bring the european model to America... 

His 'motivation' for a central bank probably originated directly out of 'The City' (the sovereign world power inside of London, look it up), the Bank of England, and from names like Barclay, Baring, or Rothschild... (although the Rothschilds were the first to really 'take over' the 'business' of loaning money to governmnets; in many ways the Barclays/Barings were the old school and the Rothschilds the new, solidified by Napoleons defeat at Waterloo)

In any event, his loyalty(in my opinion at least) was to the Crown, and to Old Europe... 

Thomas Jefferson understood this and went to great lengths to undermine the man... but Hamilton was a genius in his own right and even Jefferson admitted he was no match for him in many areas...

Look at the world today, its 'Hamiltonian' in almost every respect... big government, big multi-nationals, big banks - centralized power, increasing executive power - I'm sure we can all add to this list...

Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian, how rare !  so we have about 18 or so Hamiltonians and 1 Jeffersonian...

I wonder who would be leading in the polls 200 years ago...

btw, im new to the site but have been following Dr. Paul for a while 

- Jon

----------


## IRO-bot

so is there anything positive in the federalist papers?

----------


## torchbearer

> so is there anything positive in the federalist papers?


No- if your an anti-federlist.

----------


## Daveforliberty

If today's race was run in 1800, Ron Paul would probably be leading the field as a Democratic Republican, and leading slightly in the overall race.  ALL of the other candidates would be on Hamilton's side.
By the way I always liked Madison.  Although he wrote Federalist Papers, I think he was an anti-federalist at heart.

----------


## pazzo83

> No- if your an anti-federlist.


I disagree entirely.  Madison's writings in the Federalist Papers are incredibly enlightening, and speak to the importance of individual liberty, representative gov't, and checks & balances.  They furthermore highlight the founders' disgust with majoritarian democracy, lending much more favor towards the democratic republic.

----------


## IRO-bot

OK.  So it was half and half.  Almost mixed together.  While we are on this subject.  Did any historians ever find out who A FEDERALIST was?

----------


## torchbearer

Madison's latest writings... the ones in his eldest years, we're more thoughtful and anti-federalist leaning...  it reads like he was trying to reshape his thoughts into what he had learned throughout his life... kind of like deathbed confessions. He almost seemed anti-federalist near the end.
I liked madison too, but he isn't the sole voice of the federalist papers.

----------


## pazzo83

> Madison's latest writings... the ones in his eldest years, we're more thoughtful and anti-federalist leaning...  it reads like he was trying to reshape his thoughts into what he had learned throughout his life... kind of like deathbed confessions. He almost seemed anti-federalist near the end.
> I liked madison too, but he isn't the sole voice of the federalist papers.


Right, I'm not a huge fan of Hamilton's writings, and Madison is definitely more anti-federalist.  I just think Madison's writings are the true gem of the Federalist Papers, even if the basic premises of those writings make the collection's name a misnomer in some respects.

----------


## jblosser

> Another interesting tidbit is that the "federalists" were not actually federalists. They called themselves federalists in order to make it sound like they were the good guys when in fact they were nationalists. Some wanted the same monarchy system from Britain that they just got out of.
> 
> A nationalist is someone who wants one strong central government to rule everyone while a federalist is someone who wants many small governments to do most of the governing and one severely limited federal government to tie it all together. The theory is that if you have many small governments, you have competition. If one state gives more freedom and liberty than another, then people flock to it and the other states are forced to emulate or lose all its citizens.
> 
> The "anti-federalists" were people that were actually federalists but got the name "anti-federalist" because they opposed the "federalists". The "anti-federalists" argued against the constitution because they didn't think it limited government enough! The "anti-federalists" were libertarians philosophically and they ended up being right about all their predictions of how this government would eventually deteriorate. The "federalists" ended up being wrong in their assumption that government is not that twisted.
> 
> Even 200 years ago, there was propaganda.
> 
> Keep studying. Our best defense against tyranny is knowledge.


This is a conflation of terms resulting from our current understanding.

Understand that this "state" vs "national" government is not a binary decision, there are multiple positions on a continuum.  The three most understood are:

Confederalism: The states have almost all the power

Federalism: The power is shared, more or less equally

Nationalism: The national government has most of the power


At the time the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were written, the nation was debating ratification of the Constitution, which would replace the existing "Articles of Confederation".  That is, the debate was between moving along that continuum from a Confederal system, to a Federal system.  So the two sides were quite aptly named under the terminology of the day that was applicable to their discussion.  Of course since then we've moved along to Nationalism and in the process the nationalists managed to coopt the term "Federal" itself to refer to the national government.  (First rule of silent revolution: take the words the other side likes and change them to refer to yourself.)

To the other question someone asked of if there is any value in things that the Federalists said... if one believes that the Constitution and a Federalized government (old meaning of Federal) is truly better than the Articles of Confederation and a Confederalized government, then obviously they had something to say.  And whether you agree with them or not, it's always good to know what the other side thinks.  I did my sr. polsci work on the emergence of Judicial Review in the Federal system, and it was really enlightening to read the debate between Hamilton and the anti-Federalists.  He was so positive judges would be above making law, they were nearly gods to him.  We learn from the past, especially its mistakes.

----------


## IRO-bot

William Grayson is HILLARIOUS!!!!!!

We are now told by the honorable gentleman (Governor Randolph) that we shall have wars and rumors of wars, that every calamity is to attend us, and that we shall be ruined and disunited forever, unless we adopt this Constitution. Pennsylvania and Maryland are to fall upon us from the north, like the Goths and Vandals of old; the Algerines, whose flat-sided vessels never came farther than Madeira, are to fill the Chesapeake with mighty fleets, and to attack us on our front; the Indians are to invade us with numerous armies on our rear, in order to convert our cleared lands into hunting- grounds; and the Carolinians, from the south, (mounted on alligators, I presume,) are to come and destroy our cornfields, and eat up our little children! These, sir, are the mighty dangers which await us if we reject dangers which are merely imaginary, and ludicrous in the extreme! Are we to be destroyed by Maryland and Pennsylvania? What will democratic states make war for, and how long since have they imbibed a hostile spirit?



Reminds me of the war on terror today NO?????

----------


## jonahtrainer

> If today's race was run in 1800, Ron Paul would probably be leading the field as a Democratic Republican, and leading slightly in the overall race.  ALL of the other candidates would be on Hamilton's side.
> By the way I always liked Madison.  Although he wrote Federalist Papers, I think he was an anti-federalist at heart.


Yes, Ron Paul is much more like Thomas Jefferson.  Hamilton wanted a king....

One issue which the Founders never resolved and was usurped is the proper role of the Judiciary.  I do wonder what Ron Paul's stance is on that.  It is after-all Marshall's decision that laid the foundation of destruction that has allowed us to get where we are.

----------


## ThePieSwindler

> Yes, Ron Paul is much more like Thomas Jefferson.  Hamilton wanted a king....
> 
> One issue which the Founders never resolved and was usurped is the proper role of the Judiciary.  I do wonder what Ron Paul's stance is on that.  It is after-all Marshall's decision that laid the foundation of destruction that has allowed us to get where we are.


Do you mean his decision in Marbury vs Madison?

And yeah, Madison was the good federalist, Hamilton went a little too far.

----------

