The Federalist Papers - Alexander Hamilton (ebook pc reader txt) 📗

the least his general political sentiments, and without obliging him, necessarily, to assent, even by implication, to any portion of the proposed Constitution. Mr. Madison, a delegate in the Convention from the State of Virginia, and one of the most influential members of that body, was also enlisted in the work, and to him was entrusted the discussion of those branches of the subject which were particularly connected with the individual powers and interests of the states, and of the people, including popular tumults, the republican character of the proposed constitution, the authority which it proposed to delegate to the three departments of the federal government respectively, the relative influence of the proposed federal and the state authorities, and the organization and authority of the proposed Senate and House of Representatives. A third auxiliary pen, it is said, was originally proposed; but no person having been named in that connection, the individual referred to is not certainly known, although it is not improbable that James Duane’s profound legal abilities or Philip Schuyler’s practical business education was that which was particularly desired to make the Federalist more perfect in some of its parts.

It is fortunate for the student of American constitutional history, that the distinguished leader of the “Federalists” in New York left behind him the syllabus of the great work which is the subject of our examination, from which, and from other sources, not less authentic, a more complete analysis of the argument which was employed in behalf of the proposed Constitution has been prepared, and will be submitted at the close of this Introduction. It will not be necessary, therefore, in this place, to examine the details of the discussion by the three champions of “the new system,” or to inquire in what manner the powerful and well-directed opposition within the State of New York was met and overcome.

The three associates labored harmoniously, each within his designated field of inquiry, but all under a common signature. The joint production was styled The Federalist⁠—to indicate its support of the federal union of the thirteen sovereign states; and the several numbers which the triad produced bore the common signature of “Publius.”

Of the manner in which the three authors discharged their self-imposed duty, the general approval of their countrymen and the encomiums of the learned throughout Europe have borne the most satisfactory evidence. The Federalist is surpassed by few, if any, writings of a similar character, of the period in which it was written; and if confusion sometimes prevails in its pages from the want of precision in their use of acknowledged technical terms; if their early training in British schools, under British masters, hampered them in their newly acquired position as lawgivers for commonwealths which had expressly rejected the fundamental principles of British governmental science; if the then imperfectly acquired knowledge of the ancient republics rendered their illustrations, to some extent, imperfect⁠—the distinguished authors of the work shared these misfortunes with the best writers of the age in which they lived, and their work is not more disfigured from these causes than are those of the most approved authors of that period.

Henry B. Dawson

The Text of the Federalist

The essays of the Federalist were first printed in the newspapers, and were then republished without substantial textual change in the McLean edition of 1788. In 1802, the Hopkins edition, described above, appeared with many textual changes in the essays written by Hamilton, and in 1818 the Gideon edition, with further changes in the Madison essays. The new text of these two editions was adopted in all subsequent editions, until the appearance of the one published in 1863 by Mr. Dawson, who reverted to the original text. Mr. John C. Hamilton, in his edition a year later, adopted the Hopkins and Gideon text. Thus it happens that there are two texts of the Federalist which contend for the honor of being the best and most authentic version of these famous essays.

I have had no hesitation in deciding as to the text to be adopted in this edition. Mr. Dawson’s argument in favor of the original text is unanswerable, and can be readily summarized. The essays of the Federalist were written at a special time for a special purpose. They formed an elaborate argument, intended to convince the people of the country of the value and usefulness of the proposed Constitution, and it is, therefore, historically essential that we should have them in the precise form in which they did their work.

The Federalist furthermore was the first authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, and was mainly written by the two principal authors of that instrument. It was the first exposition of the Constitution and the first step in the long process of development which has given life, meaning, and importance to the clauses agreed upon at Philadelphia. It has acquired all the weight and sanction of a judicial decision, and has been constantly used as an authority in the settlement of constitutional questions. The essays of Publius are undoubtedly a great work upon the general subject of political federation, and if they were nothing else, textual changes and improvements would be at least defensible, if not wholly desirable. But changes cease to be permissible when the writings in question are not only essays on the general subject of political federation and government under a written constitution, but are also arguments intended to serve a specific purpose at a particular time, which have assumed the weight and sanctity of judicial interpretation.

The authority for the most extensive changes, moreover, is by no means clear. It is certain that Hamilton opposed any alterations, and indeed forbade them. It is conceded also that the changes in the edition of 1802 were not made by Hamilton, with the exception probably of the paragraph in No. 56, and the extent of his approval of them is a matter of conjecture. The further slight changes in the edition of 1818 have, it is true,