Donate this book to the Internet Archive library. If you own this book, you can mail it to our address below. Not in Library. Want to Read. Check nearby libraries Library. Share this book Facebook. May 19, History. This edition was published in April 1, by Signet Written in English — pages. Subjects Constitutional law. Libraries near you: WorldCat.
First Sentence "After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting F deral Government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. Classifications Library of Congress JK Community Reviews 0 Feedback?
Lists containing this Book. Loading Related Books. May 19, Now the numbers. The eighty-five Federalist essays were part of a grand debate over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but they were scarcely the whole of it, as it would seem today from the amount of attention they receive. In addition to Publius, several writers published serial essays in the newspapers under pseudonyms also drawn from Roman history: Caesar, Brutus, Cato, Fabius, Cincinnatus.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has collected and reproduced these arguments in twenty-two hefty volumes and multiple microform supplements entitled The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution DHRC , and the project is not yet finished. Since five of the original thirteen states are not yet covered, editors project six more volumes on ratification and still more on the Bill of Rights. The Federalist essays fill less than one of these volumes. During the ratification debates, essays for or against the Constitution would appear first in one paper and then get reprinted in others, often in distant cities.
By looking at how many times each essay was reprinted, we can get an idea of the interest that piece of writing induced, and that can give us some sense of its impact on the reading public. After The Federalist No. But what about the bound volumes? A timeline is instructive. Six states had already voted for ratification before the first volume of collected essays appeared on March 22, The nation was only three states shy of the number required to place the Constitution in effect.
By May 28, when the second volume appeared, Maryland and South Carolina had already ratified, and only one more state was needed.
One other question remains: Might the combined volumes, although appearing too late in the game to affect delegate selection, still change minds at the conventions? Hamilton and his allies certainly hoped so, and they worked hard to put copies in the hands of delegates to the four remaining conventions — but theirs were not the only essays to circulate.
As Federalist delegates sharpened their arguments with whatever writings might help, so did their opponents, and there is no indication that arguments unique to Publius changed any minds. In the final stage of the propaganda war, Publius was but one player among many. Initially, the convention had a strong Anti-Federalist bent. While we might like to imagine that last minute input from The Federalist converted Anti-Federalists, it was the arrival of late-breaking news that turned things around.
On June 24, delegates learned that New Hampshire had voted for ratification, so the Constitution would take effect no matter what New York did. A week later they discovered that Virginia, the largest state in the union, had also signed on, so if New York failed to ratify it would be on its own.
In fact, when he finally argued against a second convention in the concluding Federalist essay, he simply directed readers toward Jay:.
I will not repeat the arguments there used, as I presume the production itself has had an extensive circulation. It is certainly well worthy the perusal of every friend to his country. In the final analysis, though, the outcome was more the result of outside events and the subsequent maneuverings of the delegates, Hamilton included. To win Anti-Federalist votes, Federalists agreed to issue a call for a second convention — but only after ratification. This suggests a larger issue to ponder.
In the end, the political considerations of the moment, not abstract reasoning, were more likely to have carried the day. For reprinting of more than essays and articles from the ratification debates, see the appendices in DHRC , volumes The Anti-Federalist landslide might have been slightly exaggerated by the sympathetic New York Journal, but the Albany Gazette , June 5, , gives a preliminary report of a 2-to-1 Anti-Federalist majority. DHRC Following Federalist No.
Webster quote: DHRC Federalists focused specifically on circulating it in New Hampshire, which soon became the ninth and deciding state to ratify the Constitution. See also above, Chapter 4, note XX. To win enough Anti-Federalist votes for ratification in New York, Federalist delegates did allow the New York Convention to call for a second constitutional convention, but this would be only to consider proposed amendments.
Excellent topic Ray. Ever taken a look at the overwhelming belief that John Marshall was first to use Judicial Review? The Constitution says nothing about who should interpret the Constitution. In the Early Republic, Congress thought it had that power, presidents thought they did, the Supreme Court thought it did — and the people, meanwhile, believed they did. Madison but a unanimous decision in Hylton v.
United States In , to provide revenue for an array of defense measures fortifying harbors, establishing armories, enlisting soldiers, and building or purchasing armed ships , Congress levied what we call today luxury and sin taxes on imported wines and spirits, refined sugar, and snuff.
These excise taxes were clearly authorized by the Constitution, but when Congress also levied a tax of sixteen dollars for every carriage, some argued that this was a tax on ownership rather than on economic activity, making it a direct tax that needed to be apportioned among the states. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the tax was an excise and did not have to be apportioned among the states, so it was indeed in accordance with the Constitution.
Hylton had to pay the tax. Thanks for the reply. That is indeed an interesting case. I did not previously know about it. However, I think there may be an earlier example of Judicial Review.
0コメント