Latest / Comps List Radio / Episode 12: 250 Series July 4th Special, Publius, "The Federalist Papers,"
Transcript
- Robert Ferguson: H-Pool Global Headquarters on the World Wide Web. This is Comps List Radio with Robert Ferguson and Marie Todden. And we have a very special episode ⁓ in honor of July 4th, the 250th anniversary of the signing of a declaration of independence, which is ⁓ this Saturday. It is not Saturday as we are having this conversation, it is Tuesday. But ⁓ we are all preparing for an exciting July fourth weekend. ⁓ well, I'm not sure about Akredi. Akriti, you're in India. I don't know what July 4th celebrations are like there. ⁓ but as I gotta go around the room, I I'm gonna go around the ⁓ the the the metaphorical room here and introduce people and maybe they can tell us what their what their plans are for July fourth weekend. ⁓ Rebecca Leffler, we'll start with you. Hi everyone, I'm Rebecca Leffler. I'm an America and the World Consortium, postdoctoral associate at the University of Florida. And Gainesville, surprisingly, doesn't really have very many Fourth of July celebrations. the one that is done by the city is on July 3rd. So we will be celebrating July 3rd. There's going to be local bands and ⁓ you know, food, and I think ⁓ a parade. So we'll take our kids and that will be our celebration. Fair enough. Well that sounds like a lot of fun. And and and Rebecca, you've got two kids, a a two year old and eight month old. So ⁓ that's right. excellent. And ⁓ Marie, what what are your plans for ⁓ what are your plans for fourth of July? Well here we have lots of celebrations starting Friday and into the weekend early next week. So we also have a downtown celebration that my kids and I will go to. I'm not a huge fan of fireworks. I'm usually home by dark, but I will watch them from a lawn chair in my backyard. So we'll have that going on. ⁓ my kids love fireworks. So they're gonna go to their grandfather's and and he's gonna help them shoot off some fireworks that night. So fun stuff. That sounds like fun. A creedy, what are you ⁓ a creedy? I know it's not July obviously July fourth is not much of a big deal in India, but what are your pl do you have any fun week summer weekend plans? ⁓ no, I don't think so specifically because it's been pretty insanely hot in ⁓ New Delhi or for that matter ⁓ northern part of India. But if I'm not wrong, 4th of July is when the Press Council of India was formally constituted. So it's probably one of those days when free press is celebrated. So it's one of those things that goes back for us pre-independence. So I think you could say it's of historical significance. Of course not At the same level as Fourth of July for you guys. Well, sure. But ⁓ still that's you know, absolutely within the American tradition. ⁓ Grant, ⁓ what are your ⁓ what are your Fourth of July plans? Yeah, so I'm Grant Matson. I guess we're introducing a little bit those of us who aren't here all the time. ⁓ teach ⁓ political, economic, and intellectual history, American political economic intellectual history at Brigham Young University. ⁓ so it turns out my dad's birthday is July 1st. third. So it's gonna be a double celebration. We're gonna get together and celebrate a birthday. He's turning 97 this year. Wow. But done the math right means he's lived through almost 40% of American history. So ⁓ we will sort of double celebrate on Saturday and ⁓ we'll let him ⁓ believe that the fireworks are all for his birthday ⁓ you know and only secondarily for the country. Yeah, fair enough. Fair enough. So, in honor of July fourth, ⁓ this we decided to do a special episode where the entire H poll team is together. So, ⁓ this is the entire H poll team that you're listening to. And we wanted to do an episode discussing the Federalist Papers. This is a little outside of what we have usually done. We've typically done, obviously, historiography, secondary sources. This is, of course, a primary source. ⁓ But arguably it's the most well, I I don't even know if it's arguable. It's probably inarguably the most important piece of American political theory that has ever been written. And so in honor of July 4th, we wanted to talk about something that ⁓ is associated with the founding, even though it's more with the constitutional convention period as opposed to the Declaration of Independence. I think those ⁓ despite what Charles Beard might tell us. those values and themes connect through that entire era. So we thought this was a good time to talk about the Federalist Papers. ⁓ you know, Marie, let me let me start with you. Marie, what's your overall or you know we just read Douglas Adair, so I think that's probably going to cloud how we think about the Federalist Papers to a certain degree. But Why do you think, maybe Lisa, why do you think understanding the Federalist import papers is important for American historians? Well, just a little background here to get us started. I mean, I'm sure our listeners know the Federalist Papers, but you know, the constitution's ratified in the fall of 1780, or not ratified, but written out of committee, out of the convention, ready to go to the states for ratification in the fall of 1787. But some of the states, specifically New York state. They're little worried about this, they're not sure if their state constitutional convention is going to ratify. And so that's where the Federalist papers are born. You've got Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay who are going to work on these papers. And the purpose of them is to convince the New York delegation, but they're going to spread throughout the colony or throughout the states at that point. And they are going to eventually be published as a whole. But in these papers, they're arguing for the ratification of the Constitution. So they're laying out here the principles. They're laying out here the arguments that are going to become precedent for judges to use in the future, for academics to use when talking about the early founding of the country. And these become very important, like you said, these foundational documents that we use to establish this idea of why the founders felt the constitution was necessary. They've made these arguments in private during the constitutional convention. ⁓ some of those arguments have leaked out, but now you have this written work, these papers, this written series of papers that's going to help ⁓ the American people as a whole, and the the delegation specifically understand where the founders are coming from, trying to alleviate some of those fears and laying the groundwork for what will become part of the Bill of Rights, what will become legal precedent, how the Supreme Court and the judicial branch will be set up and how their power will be established. That's all laid out in here. And I think you're right, Andere is going to cloud our judgment since Federalist 10 is so important to his his work. And it is one of the most important Federalist papers that of course we'll talk about in more detail here. Rebecca, you have a ⁓ you have a background in political theory that the rest of us, I don't know that the rest of maybe Grant does, but the rest of us don't necessarily have. So Rebecca, I'm really curious as to how you your perspective on the Federalist papers and how you think that they fit into American history. Yeah, so ⁓ like you mentioned, I ⁓ have a background in political theory. political philosophy, American politics. And as part of my grad ⁓ school education, we could take a course on the Federalist Papers. And sort of ⁓ presciently, it was able to be counted as both political philosophy and American politics, because it really is both, right? So there's this coherent argument or view of what human nature is, right? Sort of this ⁓ mixed view of human nature that ⁓ man is primarily motivated by self-interest, right? And love of ⁓ self becomes kind of mingled with ⁓ your reasoning capabilities so that you become very attached to your opinions. ⁓ but then there's also this understanding of true true interest, right? And sort of a ⁓ a kind of deeper ⁓ purpose of government besides just safety. So I think ⁓ the Federalist Papers is a really great lens to understand what the founders were thinking when it came to what the Constitution is for, right? Like what is it that we're trying to create? both in the sense of what it does, right? Like in response to ⁓ some of the anti-Fed fears, right? It's always a dialogue. You if you want to understand the Federalist papers, you have to understand who are they specifically talking to at this moment. and then also what is it? So it it it's a kind of a turn, right? So ⁓ why are the Articles of Confederation insufficient and how to address these points that are being raised by the anti-feds? But then also, what is it that the Constitution is attempting to do? And educating not only, you know, ⁓ as as Marie said, ⁓ you know, setting foundations for ⁓ legal precedent and things like that, but also educating citizens, right? Why should you be attached to and revere the constitution? Mm-hmm. ⁓ obviously the the Federalist papers are not gonna have the same sort of effect and ⁓ And you probably wouldn't have studied them in the same way in India as we do in the United States. But I'm curious what your take is, especially as somebody from the ⁓ other side of the world, but not necessarily for me, not necessarily from that perspective, what your take is on the Federalist Papers. ⁓ as someone based in Lydia and working at a policy think tank, I don't read the Federalist Paper simply as ⁓ a foundational American text. I read them as foundational texts on constitutional governance. ⁓ many of the questions Hamilton and Madison grappled with, like how to balance liberty with effective government, or how institutions constrain power, how federalism should function, et cetera, et cetera. ⁓ these are the kind of questions that every constitutional democracy faces in different ways. In my work at VIF, where I study contemporary US politics. And of course, its larger implications ⁓ on India or for that matter in South Asia. I think the Federalist Federalist papers helped me understand ⁓ not just what American institutions are, but why they were designed the way they were. That historical context is essential for interpreting a lot of today's debates over executive power or judicial authority or federalism or for that matter political polarization, you don't have to agree with everything the founders argued to appreciate that they gave us ⁓ a vocabulary for thinking about democratic institutions that again remains remarkably relevant. And then again, the Indian Constitution itself was influenced by many traditions. For example, ⁓ British parliamentary government, American federalism and judicial review, or for that matter, ⁓ Irish directive principles, or Canadian federalism, among others. But again, Indian f ⁓ Indian framers, they again made different choices, and that's how we have the Indian Constitution. So I think that's how I see federalist paper as an outsider. Interesting. You know, Akreiti, at some point, this is probably not the venue, but at some point, you know, one of the key differences made between the Indian Constitution and the United States Constitution is the ease of amendment. The Indian Constitution amendments are obviously considerably easier than the American ones are. And I guess I'm wondering, I'm gonna I'll ask this question here. having, you know, read the Federalist papers where they make it clear that amendments are possible, but they're not real they're they're not as easy as they are in the Indian context. How ⁓ do you have a preference? I'm so sorry for my coughing. But I think one of the most striking differences between the United States and India is the ease with which their constitutions can be amended. I think the US constitution was deliberately designed ⁓ to be extremely difficult to amend requiring two-thirds majority in both House of Congress and two-thirds major majority. ⁓ and again for ratification, for for ratification, it said I think three fourths, if I'm not wrong, correct me if I'm saying something wrong. But as a result, it has been amended only, I think, 27 times. If I don't know the exact numbers, but I think this is the last I read. So the framers believe that the constitutional stability ⁓ would protect liberty, prevent transient political majorities from ⁓ reshaping the fundamental rules of the government. By contrast, I think the Indian constitution was designed to be more adaptable. While some Provisions require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. I think many amendments can be passed by a special majority in the parliament alone. Again, this reflects the priorities for the Indian Framers. They were building a newly independent, socially diverse nation that required constitutional flexibility to respond to changing political, economic, ⁓ and social. realities, right? In a sense, the US constitution at the time prioritized stability and institutional continuity, whereas the Indian constitution seeks to balance that stability with adaptability. The difference I think also helps explain why constitutional litigation and judicial interpretation becomes so important and central in the United States, while India has relied more frequently on the formal amendment procedure itself. Yeah. I I I I that's it that's very interesting. And if I recall in India, there's like you you mentioned there's two levels. There's like this like the the the major change to like foundational law. And then there's like a a like a like a way station halfway there that's like more than a parliamentary decree, but kind of ⁓ but not quite the the a constitutional amendment as we would imagine. Anyway, I really want to talk more about this, but I want to get back to the Federalist Papers. ⁓ this is the problem when I when I'm driving a bus is you never know where it's gonna go. ⁓ Grant, ⁓ let's come to you and talk ⁓ your take on the Federalist Papers writ large where it fits into American history. Well, I agree with everything everyone said so far. And ⁓ I mean, I guess the only thing I'd add is to another reason why it's so important to understand ⁓ the founding moment and why the Federalist Papers are so ⁓ still useful is we have a Supreme Court that sees itself as holding an ID ⁓ an originalist interpretive model. And so the Federalist papers are now definitive in a lot of situations for how to understand the constitution in contemporary constitutional law. So ⁓ there's an obvious and immediate application of of these papers to contemporary questions. ⁓ the other thing I think is ⁓ really interesting is I'll say it I'll go a slightly different direction and say as a historian ⁓ and and also as a As a teacher, right, having taught the Federalist Papers a bunch of times, ⁓ the thing that has slowly become clearer to me over the years is I I'm not sure. We we tend, let me start this over the start over this way. We tend to treat the Federalist Papers as an articulation of already understood conclusions about the Constitution, right? We sort of feel like they all went to Philadelphia and they argued it all out, they all figured out what it meant. And then the and then the Federalist papers are just an articulation of that. I am not sure that's the case. I think they were figuring out what they had done in Philadelphia as they wrote the Federalist Papers, right? So that ⁓ so that Federalist 51, which is one of the famous ones we always quote, is in some ways a clearer articulation of what Federalist 10 was trying to say. And so and and ⁓ and I think that the historians who treat treat the Federalist papers those ways in that way tend to give us a better understanding of what of not just this moment, but but how we should how we should read the papers. And and and I actually just to kind of finish the point off, I think the ⁓ I think this fits my own experience with committee work. Right. Like you you get into a committee of some kind and you work out all these compromises and you think you know what you are up to. And it's only after the fact when you have to write it all up and say, wait, what did we do? And why we do this? And you're and you finally get the logic of the decision you've already made. Right. And so I do think there's ⁓ you know, not to make too much of the metaphor, but there's almost a therapeutic experience going on where the where the back and forth between Publius and Brutus is really bringing to the surface things that I'm not sure anybody in the room could have articulated at the time. And you know, it's arguable whether they could have articulated as well after the fact, right? So so ⁓ so we're we're we're getting we're getting a kind of a slow realization of what this what this thing is, the constitution and what it means and how it's supposed to work. Yeah, Grant, I think that's that's very perceptive. I mean, I th that that's really perceptive and really interesting because I do think you're right. I think it it allows ⁓ whatever happened in Philadelphia. You know, we have s we have notes obviously about what happened, but a lot of that really doesn't matter after the Federalist Papers. Yeah, right, right. Because the Federalist Papers becomes the definitive justification. Right. Yeah. I mean so well, and not to get too bogged down in Madison's notes, right? But he didn't publish the notes till much, much later. Right. And had a chance to revise them. ⁓ so I mean we have to trust that he's being honest in his reporting, right? But it's always possible that he he went back and revised based on what he said in the Federalist papers, right? Yeah. Well, and this is actually so you know, again, Marie and I did an episode on on a dare that just posted ⁓ yesterday. ⁓ for those of you, you know, we'll we're recording on Tuesday, it posted on Monday. We'll have posted earlier this week for so people should go back and listen to it. But In his examination, in Adair's examination of who wrote various Federalist papers, ⁓ one of the reasons it was such a mystery is that neither Hamilton nor Madison in their lifetime were necessarily eager to say, I wrote this one, I wrote that one. And the reason was is because they all had political careers that came afterwards. And they didn't want to be accused of like, well, but what about what you said in Federalist 23? Right. Right. And so they were both very like, yeah, you know, I wrote some of them. And you know, and so that's part of what allowed the mystery to continue. Right. But they were political rivals. They became and they became political rivals, right? Exactly. So it complicates what you're saying even more. Right. ⁓ and so anyway, ⁓ you know. gr you know when I teach the Federalist Papers and I I know everybody knows this, but I'm just gonna briefly and ⁓ say, you know, one of the things that I think is really interesting is the pseudonym that they chose, Publius. And I think that tells you a lot about what they thought they were doing when they were writing this. ⁓ you know they signed Publius to all the Federalist papers. And Publius was one of the architects of the Roman Republic. He was one of the great early statesmen of the Roman Republic. And for an educated ⁓ crowd in 1780, you know, in 1787, 1788, ⁓ they would have been that crowd would have known that okay, so what they're saying here is we are designing the equivalent of the Roman Republic. And then if you take a look at the names chosen by the anti-federalists, I think that tells you what they thought was going on. Cato and Brutus, who were the last great defenders of the Republic. Right. And so there's this, on the one hand, the Federalists believe that they are founding the equivalent of the Roman Republic. And Cato and Brutus, the anti-federalists, believe that they are the last gas defenders of the Republic before the empire or tier, you know, before the empire begins. And so that's just very intro the I think those names tell you a lot about what they thought they were doing. And ⁓ sorry, Grant, go ahead. Yeah, so I'm influenced a lot by ⁓ I don't know him well, but ⁓ political scientists who I think taught at Arizona State. So ⁓ where you are now, Rob, ⁓ Terrence Ball, ⁓ who ⁓ I mean the way he said it is y to your point, the question Both sides thought that they were defending or articulating true Republican principles. But but both sides took that as a as a well-defined or, you know, like a clearly articulated position. ⁓ but the term itself is ⁓ exactly what's in doubt, right? The whole debate, in a sense, of of the Federalist papers is whose definition of republic will win out? Right. So to yeah, so exactly. I mean, and that's caught up exactly in the pseudonyms that they chose. Be and and this is always the complicating factor in American history is is that the states came first. The states ⁓ existed as republics and the and so the federal government was always going to be something a little bit new and weird, ⁓ as long as the states persisted, right? And and so in a and you know, and in the end, ⁓ what they invented was had no previous prior model, right? Like this whole ⁓ dual republic as Madison. similar said, or or federalist system we have was what we would, you know, call it today. I mean, this is a a a more or less to at least to my knowledge, I think and to their knowledge, an unprecedented model ⁓ that they were inventing, you know. And so whether you call that a republic or not a republic, I you know, I don't know. But ⁓ but I guess Madison ended up winning out, right? Madison Hamilton, we we call it a republic now. ⁓ even though in some ways it doesn't fit any of the examples that existed at the time. Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's certainly I don't think it could have been written before the late 18th century. Yeah. Right. Well, even I mean, I guess the question is could could it I mean it's I mean I don't know. ⁓ and a creedy maybe has ⁓ a different view coming from ⁓ you know outside the United States, but I mean historically speaking, it's a weird thing, right? They invented a weird thing. It's you know, it's not a it's a like it's a split sovereignty. dual republic, you know, that people get to speak here and there, but not here or there, you know, and that kind of thing. It's, it's ⁓ I mean, it's a c I don't know going back to this, it's it's a classic committee product, right? It's full of compromise and redefinition and ⁓ shortcuts, ⁓ you know, hoping that it'll all kind of work and hold together and ⁓ you know, and so as political theory goes, I I I mean, I think it becomes very complicated because because, you know, it it goes in a lot of different directions all at the same time. So anyway, so yeah, ⁓ so ⁓ anyway, I ⁓ the part that I like that Terry Spahl sort of points out in his discussion of this moment is, you know, that the the definition of republic is exactly what's up for grabs, but but not definition in a lexical sense. It's it's an institutional sense. Yeah. Right. It's what how what are the institutions that will define what Counts as a republic and and meets all the criteria of republic, yet has this institutional form that's unprecedented. You know. Yeah. And how do they defend the innovations? Right. And that's right. And that's what we're talking about now. Right. Exactly. How do how do they then articulate what they've done? Explaining it. They're working it out. Right. They're working it out in real time. And we see that process. We don't see the the Madison's notes at first from the convention. But we're able to see this process of how they're defining this term republic and how that's going to be unique to the United States. And I think that's part of what's so important about these documents is we do have this inside look into what they're thinking and how they're evolving. Even though these men do not agree with each other ⁓ politically, they both understand that a stronger federal government is going to be important and then they can have those political fights under that umbrella. Yeah, and this is the question, and you all might have a different opinion, but ⁓ the other thing that I think a lot about as I have taught ⁓ the Constitution and Federalist papers over the years is they must have, when they were in the room debating these things, they must we know they all knew they assumed that Washington would be the first president, right? So so they they know that's the case. But they but it had to it couldn't have stopped there. They had to have been looking around and said to each other, so where is Madison gonna end up in this situation? Where's Hamilton gonna end up? You where are all these hands? So that the debates are both theoretical but super personal. Right. Like like they're they're wondering what will this look like? You know, if we create this power in the Senate, let's assume that, you know, these are the guys here in the room that will be in the Senate. How will they behave? And and I think that's the part that ⁓ informs the theory. This is the part, in other words, so I think there's this theory that kind of goes that's in the background of republic how Republicans work and all the rest. But what What I feel like Madison didn't work out in and and Hamilton and the others until after they started writing Federalist papers is the those dynamics. They're like, ⁓ we we would never have said under no circumstances can we let, you know, Aaron Burr have this kind of power, right? But they all must have in the back of their heads say said to themselves, somebody like Burr is gonna eventually run for president or or be in the set or whatever else. So we have to figure out That the problem of that guy. Figure that out. And but and so I think in the Federalist Papers, what Madison, Hamilton, and Sonar are doing is articulating it without ever naming names, right? Without without ever saying, look, we built it precisely with the kind of tyrant in mind, because we know who that is. We actually know these people, right? We know they're and so anyway. And so I think that's kind of in the background, and that's why they're still working it out. Because how do you put into how do you turn How do you explain the theory of something that was actually kind of practical in the moments? Is is I think what's going on. Yeah, and that's yeah, sorry, I'm just gonna jump in very quickly here and then I'm gonna p ⁓ kick it over to Rebecca if that's okay. But these are prac these are not just theorists, they're also practitioners. Right. And they have a personal interest in this in a way that like maybe Montesquieu didn't. Right. ⁓ Rebecca, I I'm curious your ⁓ You know, one of the key themes that I think emerges through this is human nature. And I think your background gives us a really good opportunity maybe to to delve into what you think their approach to human nature is. Yeah. And I think ⁓ Federalist One ⁓ is a great place to start because Federalist One sort of sets these really high, lofty aspirations, right? It seems like it's ⁓ up to the us, the people of New York, to decide whether or not it's even possible for good government to exist through reflection and choice, or whether or not people will always be destined on. accident and force for their political situation. And it's up to us to decide, right? So whether or not we're successful has ⁓ ramifications for all of human all of humankind. but then there's also this recognition almost immediately, right? I think two or three paragraphs later, that it's not always useful to look behind ⁓ political opinions to argue about interest, right? Because good And bad motives exist on both ⁓ behind both good and bad reasonings, right? And so trying to find or ascertain whether or not somebody has good intentions or bad intentions, or whether or not they're purely motivated by self-interest or not motivated by self-interest, that's not actually useful for finding out, you know, ⁓ or or or or for ⁓ Reasoning through the logic of the argument. And so it's this really so Federalist one and I think the Federalist Papers generally is both this kind of view of what the Constitution is trying to do, but also rooted in this understanding of human nature that self-interest will always be a part of politics, even if we're also guided by these desires for. ⁓ good government through reflection and choice, we will always still have to contend with accident and force. And so it's it's a mixture. And I think as as you know, as we've kind of alluded to, there's some ⁓ that really sees on Federalist 10 as being kind of revealing of ⁓ kind of economic determinism of ⁓ the constitution, but that The Federalist Papers can't really be read in isolation like that. That it's it's this view of human nature that we both aspire and are drawn to truth and you know good government with liberty at its end and ⁓ justice as the end of government. And also we are it is inescapable that we will also be ⁓ ⁓ influenced by love of our own opinion, by our own economic interest, by our own station of where we're at. And that is why we also have to use that in forming government, right? Ambition must be made to counteract ambition, use that aspect of human nature to actually make government stronger and better. So it's this understanding of human nature and then arguing why the constitution ⁓ is sort of the best possible, not best simply, but best possible form of government. Yeah. ⁓ Creedy, ⁓ I'm curious, what are again c coming from outside the the the American tradition, having maybe a foot inside and a foot outside the American tradition. what are some of the what do you think is like the most important theme to you that develops throughout the entire Federalist papers? ⁓ hi. So I think ⁓ from whatever I understand, I think again, it's I don't know these are the more popular ones, but I think ⁓ federalist number ten, which talks about factions and polarizations, especially in today's time, for that matter, ⁓ thirty-nine talks about federalism, fifty-one that talks about checks and balances, or seventy that talks about The importance of strong executive, and then we talk about the 78 in terms of judiciary and judicial review. I think all of this is very relevant even for India, especially for example, when we talk about checks and balances or when we talk about judicial review. I think ⁓ in today's polarized times, which is something that is not only exclusive for American politics, I think I think it is something that a lot of countries across the globe are witnessing. I think a document like the Federalist Paper reminds us that these doc the such a document might not give us definitive answers. I guess they are relevant because they frame some very enduring questions. Because for us to start anything, we need good questions firsthand. And every generation has to ask these questions again and again. ⁓ how much executive power is too much? Or how should courts behave, or what happens when political parties become highly polarized. Again, these questions are not something that only America grapples with. I think these questions ⁓ any democracy for that matter grapples with. Of course, the degree might differ, or the context to it might differ. But I think from that standpoint, I think it's pretty relevant for us as well. Marie. ⁓ what are some of the some of the themes that you see throughout and maybe some examples you want to highlight ⁓ or particular episodes you want to highlight? You're muted. There we go. I think one of the things we see throughout, like Rebecca's talking about checks and balances. Of course, that's going to be an important part of it because people are worried about the federal government becoming too powerful. So you need to assure the people, okay, we're going to have those checks and balances. Another thing I see throughout the Federalist Papers, and I teach 20th ⁓ century American history. And so when I talk about the Federalist Papers, we're talking about what the founders are talking about in the papers, what they're arguing in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and how that's played out over time. And one thing my students bring up again and again is this idea that they could not have foreseen that even though like Federalist 10 says we're gonna survive if we are a wide, diverse republic with competing interests, so no single faction can become too powerful. They could not have foreseen the way that media was going to adapt over time to create a situation where different ideas can spread throughout the country, where these ideas can create these factions, and where you can have tyranny and you can have corruption, even though they're trying to create this system that balances that out. They're trying to create this system where you they're trying to protect from those things. And so my students often pick up on that. They often pick up on the idea, what would these ⁓ documents have looked like if they had known social media was going to happen, if they had known nationwide newspapers even. were going to catch on if they had known how far the country would expand across the continent. And so I think you can see in here, like Grant said earlier, they're thinking about specific people and specific circumstances within the context of when they're writing these things. And so if we take those the way the courts have, if we take those the way political science scientists have or the way historians have, we have to look at how what these men are missing in these documents. What can could they not have foreseen? And so I like this idea of even the balance of powers, the separation of powers has not worked consistently throughout the continuation of the constitution, especially as we get into the 20th and then into the 21st century. So I think looking back on these documents from the perspective of the 20th and 21st century, especially as we're looking back from the 250th year, we do begin to see things that they could not have. for seeing, like the way the country is going to get this people in different parts of the country are going to get the same information. And these ideas that once would have been the ideas of a small minority are going to be able to spread across the country and create a larger faction that like the ideas in Federalist 10 are not going to protect against. The ideas in Federalist 51 are not going to protect against this the way that these men thought they would. See, I actually think they do. I think they do. ⁓ I'm sorry to cut in here, but I think the biggest thing that they missed. in federal and it's in federal you know the biggest thing that they missed was they assumed the Congress would always be very, very protective of its domain. Yeah, absolutely. And it hasn't been. That is the biggest thing that they missed because I don't think they recognize that sometimes politics is easier. To let somebody else make the decision for you. I mean, they knew that. But I don't think they quite recognized how Congress would the representative side of things, which is what they were a lot of what they were worried about. They were worried about the the factions taking over the representative aspect of the ⁓ of the system. And I don't think they quite appreciated how Congress would kind of just Give away a lot of its powers. Now, I think in a lot of cases for good reason, in the sense that like as gov as global governance became more and more challenging, technocracy became more important. And having technocracy inside the legislative branch is a challenge. So it's just easier to put it in the executive branch. But I think that ⁓ but however, I I still think the actual the point stands, even if the the the point of of of ⁓ People inherently wanting to protect power and becoming more powerful. I think that inherently stands. And I think there is inherently like a way of pitting faction against faction or interest against interest that still works. It's just that maybe it's working in a different way than they expected it to. Right. Yeah. But I think sorry, Grant. Yeah, I I I mean this is a this is exactly the kind of stuff historians love to argue about, right? ⁓ What what did they miss and what which is another way of saying what what historical transition did they not foresee? Which puts the argument firmly in our domain, right? We can we can talk about the history. So ⁓ I mean, I think ⁓ of course students will say social media is the great transformative thing because that's what they understand. But ⁓ I mean, I would say I'll throw it out to the group. I think that ⁓ if it's assuming we're all right in some ways that they missed something kind of important, ⁓ what if we called it they never imagined a fully nationalized country like we have. So ⁓ the idea of a single market or an industrial society in which large corporations have essentially, you know, a a national or even international footprint. Or ⁓ or even some problems like ⁓ you know market externalities like pollution that isn't ⁓ can't cannot be resolved ⁓ through local or state government, right? Has to requires a national response if you're gonna try to tackle, you know, some things. So that ⁓ so there wasn't just that ⁓ that there are these external factors affecting the development of the constitutional order. But that there's also moments where the people themselves change the constitutional order to respond to those factors. And I'm thinking here, like, you know, the 16th Amendment, which empowers the federal government almost ⁓ in an unlimited way to take money from people, right? Like, you know, that's a huge ⁓ capacity that the federal government develops through amendment, right? and then similar to the ⁓ you know, ⁓ the ⁓ Amendments to change the direct election of senators, but also even even though it doesn't exist, prohibition, which was a way to nationalize what people get to consume, right? And gives power to the federal government to do that. Like it was a it was a nationalizing moment that ⁓ actually changed the structure of the constitution in a fundamental way to do that that had the net result of what Rob you're talking about. The that's that's where the power of the executive in some ways comes from is. ⁓ a s a conscious choice by the people at a certain moment to create the kind of executive agencies that would have the capacity to start to dominate the Congress, right? Something like that. But okay. But I throw that out as a hypothesis. You guys, this is the kind of thing we political historians love to debate. So I I'm curious what everybody else says ⁓ to this. Marie, why don't we start with you? ⁓ yeah, so I agree with both of you in that it's not just information that is, you know, they couldn't foresee this idea of information being what's spreading. I like this idea that they could not have seen us becoming the nation, like so nationalized. And they are handing over some of this executive power. Congress is handing over some of this executive power, some out of necessity, some because they don't want to take hard votes. And as we become more nationalized, those hard votes become more and more public and harder and harder to take. And so I agree with this idea that they could not, again, they couldn't have foreseen how large just geographically we were going to become, let alone how even as we became larger geographically, because of the communication, because of the technology technological revolution, eventually because of the internet, we're going to come together and create this national identity even more. And they're talking about you know, basically the northeastern and eastern seaboard here when they're making these arguments. A Creedy or Rebecca? ⁓ I think I agree with you guys, I think mostly. I think what strikes me the most is that ⁓ the founders designed the institutions, but they could not fully anticipate political ecosystem that would ⁓ grow around them. I think that is what they could not foresee, or maybe nobody could have for that matter. the role of political parties or for that matter, the tax, the mass media. ⁓ Administrative state, ⁓ how judicialized the politics would be, all of that has transformed how these institutions operate. ⁓ the constitution has remained largely the same, but the political incentives within it have changed. And and that would dramatically. That's why the Federalist papers remain, I think, so valuable, because they allow us to compare, I Guess what the founders' expectations were with the realities of the modern American democracy that we live and see. Rebecca? I mean, one of the ⁓ drawbacks of going last is I just reiterate a lot of the points, but yeah, I I think ⁓ what when I kind of reflect on my experience teaching the Federalist Papers ⁓ and also just sort of ⁓ founding era ⁓ thought and then kind of comparing it to now is the way in which the institutions have changed. Right. That there in the Federalist Papers is this real clear view that all things being equal, the legislature is dominant. And that's why you have to split the legislature into two, right? A, that is the practical, because you can have representation ⁓ of big and small states in two different ways. So that's sort of the practical reason for ⁓ splitting the legislature in two. But a more theoretical reason is that ⁓ the legislature According to Publius, ⁓ everywhere is sucking power into its legislative vortex, right? And that because of that, you really had to put all of these constraints on the legislature and almost ⁓ strengthen the other branches against it, right? That the judiciary is the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, that the legislature is more. Accurate representation of the will of the people. All of these things I think are kind of foreign to students now, where they view the president as being the true representation of the people, right? As opposed to their members, ⁓ the representatives in Congress, that the judiciary has grown to have really the final say in all matters of constitutional questions. and so This balance that was initially created has through ⁓ constitutional amendments, but also through, as Akrudi was saying, sort of the entrenchment of the two-party system, and as Grant was saying, other kinds of ⁓ developments, ⁓ they've really changed the system. ⁓ so I don't think it's one thing that they missed. I think it's just Over time, the ⁓ expectation of how government would work and then how it actually has unfolded ⁓ had become quite divergent. As I'm going last, I'm gonna take the opposite tack. I'm gonna say you're all wrong. ⁓ they didn't ⁓ they didn't miss anything, it's all there. ⁓ in fact we were gonna argue against myself earlier. I was wrong. Everything In the interest of making this ⁓ to play devil's advocate here for a second, I actually don't think they did miss anything. I think that they would have very much understood the republic that we live in today. I think they would have understood social media because they'd read Tacitus and they would have understood how rumor and conspiracy theory can spread through a town like wildfire and can develop mo and can create mobs. and they would have understood that, you know, as Madison says in Federalist Pen, like You know, you what what is it? Liberty is the fact, you know, liberty is the faction is auction is to buy or something like that. Like you, you, you, you you know, if you snuff out liberty, you know, sure, we can snuff out factions by snuffing out liberty, right? ⁓ we can do a lot if we just get rid of liberty. We can accomplish a whole bunch of things if we if we get rid of liberty, but like the goal is we want to preserve liberty. So how do we do all of those things while preserving it? And I mean, I think that's still the fundamental question that we ask ourselves today in American political theory and American political thought. ⁓ so it's a, and how do we balance these things without falling into tyranny or anarchy? And ⁓ you know, so I I actually think that, you know, and would they have imagined a continent-wide superpower? Maybe not, but I think Alexander Hamilton could have, and I think Alexander Hamilton wanted that. ⁓ and I you know, could they have imagined a massively centralized government? Yeah, I think Alexander Hamilton could have. He was trying to create it. you know, maybe not James Madison. And this is the thing, of course, is Publius is not one person. There are several people here, and so if ⁓ it's several people, and you know, speaking earlier, Grant, you brought up, you know, the jurisprudence based on an original philosophy. And this is sometimes one of the problems that when you read decisions that are written that depend on the Federalist papers, is it's not one person. It's three definitive takes on the Constitution wrapped into one person. And so I mean I think you see the distinction here in Federalist Nine and Federalist Ten. You read Federalist Nine, it's all Hamilton, Federalist 10 is all Madison. And like they're the same issue is what they're dealing with, how to deal with faction. And you get two very different Actual kicks on it and what the constitution is trying to accomplish. So, I mean, I think if you try to interpret the Federalist papers very narrowly and say, like, here's the very specific thing they were trying to do, then there's stuff that they missed. But I think if you take it broadly, in the sense of here's sort of the range of things that we're going to permit, we're going to create institutions that can kind of that can accommodate these ranges of things, sort of in a broader liberal perspective. I think they Right, they accounted for a lot. And I think that as technology has changed and people have changed and education has changed, and the geopolitics have changed, or the economies have changed, ⁓ obviously it's a challenge. But I mean, one of the things that Madison writes about is what happens if we become a commercial society? Is that going to change everything that we're writing about here? As opposed to an agrarian one. And that's one of Madison's concerns. Anyway. Yeah, so argued prove me wrong. No, I think you're right. So what if we said that there may be a couple of different ways to think about it? So one is we can frame it as a great it's a great question for underrads to think about. ⁓ what did they miss? You know, so that that's kind of the question we started with. They if they'd been if they'd been more prescient, what would they have foreseen? ⁓ and so the answer there could be, you know, well, they missed technological advance, continental. advanced, you know, these sorts of things. Or alternatively, they actually anticipated a lot of that and they came up with a framework that could accommodate. So that's one way to answer that question. one, the way I tried to frame it was more like, well, ⁓ they may ⁓ or may not have missed something, but as a but but it changed. Like the constitution they created is not the same thing because people down the road said we actually are going to change it so that in some ways you can't hold them accountable for some of these things. Because they didn't do it. We did it, right? We did it after the fact. So, ⁓ and that's and that's a good question, a good way to frame it if you want to ask the question if it's a good idea to have a powerful executive. And I think that ⁓ in our contemporary moment, ⁓ and I'm not just trying to say, you know, because Donald Trump is president, I think people on different sides of the political spectrum had some doubts about Joe Biden or Barack Obama or George W. Bushier before that. It but there's a general trend of, you know, we talk a lot about the imperial presidency and We're not sure that's a good idea. So so it may not have been the founder's fault. In other words, it might have been the progressives' fault, right? That we have this new problem, that the founders maybe got it right, you know, and so on. So that's another way to frame it. ⁓ let me throw out a third way, ⁓ to think about it. And ⁓ because one of my favorite Federalist papers almost never gets put in the pantheon of great Federalist papers, and that's ⁓ 45. And there's ⁓ once there's ⁓ two sentences in there that I just want to throw out, you know, maybe for discussion. ⁓ where Madison's trying to describe federalism. And he says the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. And so, ⁓ and I think that one of the things that all the founders probably couldn't see, maybe maybe could, I don't know. This seems to argue in some ways against Federalist 10, because I think from our perspective, we'd say, Well, a lot of our political fights are precisely because we actually think it's a bad idea for state governments to have numerous and indefinite powers. Right. And the obvious question there is slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, and so on. So we'd say part of the reason more power has gone to the federal government is precisely because experience taught us states can be really abusive. And and that's what Madison's obviously trying to explore in Federalist 10. But obviously Federalist X wasn't enough to resolve the question of slavery ⁓ on its own, right? It it required war and and then obviously the question of racism lingered on. And so, you know, it took a Civil Rights Act and and specifically it took a 14th Amendment, a change to the Constitution to clarify that the powers of the state governments couldn't be indefinite, right? And ⁓ and so by contrast, the powers delegated to the ⁓ federal government are few and defined. I mean, those have expanded. And in some ways have expanded in order to rein in what we don't like the states doing. Now, fast forward, I do think that one of the one of the things that's really hard, I think, for most people to grasp in the country today, especially my students, is the constitution is still set up for states to figure out most problems. Like most issues, most law is state law. And most, and I also say to my students, like, Write down all of the ways you have interacted with government in the last month. You know, everywhere from getting something in the mail, which of course they don't nobody gets anything in the mail if you're an undergrad, right? But ⁓ but you know, crosswalks and garbage collection and schools and everything else. And then you break it down. You're like, well, so look, almost all of those things are state or local government. Yet all of your focus is on the federal government. And this begs the question, why? And I think at a at a more fundamental level, it begs this question of whether this particular framework and 45 Federalist 45 is all about this. The idea is look, the state governments are what everyone's gonna care about. You're all focused on the, you know, the federal government is always going to be sort of a handmade to the state governments. So ⁓ you know, so let's let's let's not make too much of it. But but in the pop that's one of the big changes that I I don't think that they could have done like I it's not that they couldn't have foreseen it, but it does beg the question whether the constitutional order still works if the population is totally focused on the power of the federal government. But in practicality, it's the state and local government that has all the power and does all the affects us in the most in ⁓ most often, right? Something like that. Well, I mean, this was the anti federalist critique, right? It's that Article One, Section Eight was gonna give the new government so much power. that ⁓ it was going to trample on the authority of the states everywhere. I mean, I think history's borne that out. Well, this is my question. Has it? Or is it just in the popular conscience, you know, like consciousness, right? Because I mean, it still is the case that most if I get in trouble with the law, it's almost certainly going to be the state that I'm in charge of. Good point. Yeah. And ⁓ and and almost all of the cases that Supreme Court says that's an unconstitutional law, they're saying it about state laws, not federal. ⁓ Well, I'll give you a perfect example. So in Arizona, you know, every state has their own constitution, right? And a lot of them have their own Bill of Rights. There are people who argue, you know, who will have protests against Second Amendment, the Second Amendment in Arizona. And I'll laugh because I'll think the Second Amendment is going to be irrelevant in Arizona because the Arizona Constitution has a far stronger protection for private gun ownership, right? Than the Second Amendment does by any stretch of the imagination. So if you want the Second Amendment to matter, or if you want reform of the Second Amendment at the national level to matter in your personal life, you got to reform the Arizona Constitution first. Right. Right. Yeah, exactly. And so I don't know. I think it's so it makes me wonder if our constitutional order if we haven't created a kind of tension where our our focus is always going to be at the federal level. But that and and for all that the federal government does. It still is the case that it's state and local government that affects us the most in most of the things we care about. You know, the school hours our kids attend, what they're taught, ⁓ you know, what are they picked up? Pandemic responses. Pandemic pandemic response. All of these things. It all ends up being the states, which is was the design. But that somehow our politics is all wrapped up in in what's happening at the federal level. So that so that And I think this is also an anti Federalist argument. It's so that the fear is that it makes us weirdly disempowered and apathetic as a citizenry because the part of the the thing we can't affect that much, the f We're getting the bo the worst of both worlds. Right. Like you know, it creates a kind of disconnected, alienated feeling in the citizenry. ⁓ precisely 'cause we don't understand the the structure. And it's precisely because of the things you guys talked about. You know, the the way media and so on have nationalized politics and the way parties have nationalized politics. Yeah. ⁓ and Yeah, I I think that ⁓ so we're it's a t I it's a Every time I read the Federalist papers, I feel this tension of like, here's how it's w supposed to work, here here's the explanation. And then I think, but that is not the the popular conception of how government does in fact work, you know. Anyway, I don't know. Yeah. Now I want to be cognizant of everybody's time here because I know we can talk about this all day. ⁓ so what I wanna do is I'd like, you know, Grant, you brought up one of your favorite Federalist papers that baby isn't in the Pantheon. ⁓ You know, ⁓ Marie, do you have one that isn't normally in the Pantheon that you're that that that you like? Yeah, I want to bring up two things very quickly. I know we're getting short on time and I want to hear everyone's, of course. But one, I think Grant articulated this very well that the constitution isn't the same, that we have had the ability to amend it, and we have amended it pretty drastically. And the founders foresaw that because they gave us the ability to do that. So it's not to say that they couldn't have foreseen that the constitution had to change. I think they realized the constitution absolutely had to change to survive. But could they have understood the way the electorate was going to expand? Could they have understood that women and people of color would have citizenship rights, have the right to vote? And I think that has changed the constitution and the way the government works drastically since the writing of the Federalist papers and the founding of the Constitution. So just to continue on with that idea of what they could not have foreseen. The expansion of the lecture to a huge one. Also, one of the things my students always get hung up on is how voting works. Each state has the right to determine how their elections work. Of course we all vote on the same day, but they always wonder why can't we register to vote on our phones if other states get to do that? Why don't we have the same rights when it comes to voting or they see them as rights when it comes to voting that other states have. And so I think that's one of the ways they look at they certainly like what I get from students teaching, especially 20th century political history, is they're looking at the federal government. They know very little, as Grant said, about what the state government does. It touches them more. And so I wanted to put those two things ⁓ out there. My one of not necessarily my favorite, but one of the ⁓ Federalist papers I like, and part of this is because. you know, this idea has changed is Federalist 68 and the setup of the the defense of the Electoral College. And so I think this idea, you know, like we said, they knew that Washington would be the first president, but they knew that there would be presidents that came after this. And they are worried, how are those presidents going to be chosen? Because if they're chosen by a popular vote, we have a fairly uninformed electorate is part of this argument here. And how can a person from New Hampshire know what a person from Virginia needs? And so how do we create this kind of body to elect this executive who's not supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but how do we create this body to elect an executive that can see and and represent all Americans? And their idea is to create the electoral college and have these electors from each state. And I think Hamilton's ⁓ argument here, I I understand it in the context of the time, but this is a debate that our students' generation is going to have to have and they're having right now. And this is going to carry forward. And I think in some cases, right now, the way that they look at the electoral college, this is going to be, if they pay attention to the Federalist papers at all, this is going to be the one that they come back to is is why was this justified in the first place? Because they are many, many of my students think the electoral college is outdated. Even if they don't even as they don't understand why we have it in the first place. And so not to get into the debate about the electoral college itself, but I like Federalist 68. I also like that Hamilton writes against the Bill of Rights and that is overturned almost immediately. So I think that ⁓ is that Federalist 84 I think yeah it's eighty it's eighty four. Eighty four. Yeah, I didn't have that one in my notes, but I do like that he I mean this he's he's wrong immediately. with this one. But arguing that the states do have already have a Bill of Rights, it's not necessary. States are gonna have more power. And I, you know, based on what has happened over time, I think it's absolutely good we have a federal Bill of Rights as the federal government has become stronger. And and of course the the founders did too. I mean seventeen ninety one the the Bill of Rights is ratified. So it didn't take long at all to decide Hamilton was wrong about that. Although what is interesting is that Hamil in that there's a great the One of the great defenses is that if we enumerate the rights, will we have any others? Yes, yes. And this is a good point. And then there we'll be only in our right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And I think that's a great question for people. Because I think as the const you know, a government has developed over the you over the last, you know, two hundred and thirty-five year, two hundred and forty years since the constitution was written, ⁓ you know, a lot of times the courts go, well. Because it's in the First Amendment or because it's in the the the you know, the fourteenth Amendment or wherever, your rights are protected here. So the government can't do it. But the implication being if it wasn't actually enumerated, you wouldn't have this right. Right. But anyway, Rebecca, anything that really specifically comes to your mind? Any Yeah, ⁓ I guess quickly just kind of addressing ⁓ sort of the earlier points made about how ⁓ maybe they didn't miss something. I think maybe a a better way of phrasing that question ⁓ would be what did the anti-feds get right? And I think you know we've raised some of the things that they have gotten right. I think Bill of Rights is kind of the most immediate, obvious. ⁓ but they were also very concerned about the judiciary. ⁓ and they might have been, you know, had the foresight hundred years before beforehand, right, to really see the threat that the ⁓ judiciary could end up posing. ⁓ my Fed my favorite ⁓ Fed paper is Fed 37. And so ⁓ the way that ⁓ I learned about the Federalist Papers is kind of thinking of it as a whole. ⁓ Papers one through 36 are really about the importance of union and why the Articles of Confederation are insufficient, with the exception of Fed 10. ⁓ And then Fed 37 forward is really about why this constitution, right? Because it's not enough to just nearly name the problem Articles of Confederation are insufficient. Okay, that is something that even the anti-feds agreed with. ⁓ but what is it specific about this constitution that ⁓ addresses these problems and actually creates good government? So, Fed 37, if you look at it that way, ⁓ kind of as this whole one to 36, focusing on this ⁓ necessity of union, inadequacy of the articles, Fed 37 is really a new beginning. And so if you compare it to one, which is the true beginning, right? Very high minded. ⁓ Fed 37 is much more sober. It is much more grounded, much more realistic, and it really focuses on sort of ⁓ the difficulties of the task at hand, right? We're doing something that has never been done before. ⁓ there is a difficulty of mingling stability with energy, right? The necessary energy that's needed. ⁓ but there is also a difficulty in knowing. Right. Like knowing what nature is, knowing the intelligibility of man himself, right, the limitations of words, right, how we communicate and the fact that this will be a written constitution, that has its own limits. And so I love FEP37 because it really is a kind of exercise in moderation for ⁓ the readers, right, to kind of temper their expectations. This is not going to be a kind of ⁓ utopian vision. This is not going to solve all of the problems, but it is still good government. And these are the reasons why, right? ⁓ Moving forward, we're going to look at how these specific institutions address some of these ⁓ problems that are inherent in human nature and also the formation of government. And so To me, that always kind of stands out as a little jewel that I don't really see ⁓ you know, talked about too much. and I hope, you know, I'm working on other things, but I I hope to actually write a paper on Fed 37 and kind of the importance of it and understanding what the constitution is. Agree. Yeah. ⁓ Adi Quick. I I remember during my Western political thought classes back in my ⁓ undergraduate days. I remember coming across two Federalist papers which I felt were very interesting because I'm an outsider, a non-American in this grouping. So for my for me, my views are obviously a little different. I think one paper was number nine. It interested me because ⁓ Hamilton argued that political science had advanced and that modern constitutional design ⁓ could avoid the failures of earlier republics. So from an Indian perspective, that's fascinating because our constitution was also the product of worrying and adapting and improving upon earlier constitution experiences. So it reminds us that constitutions are living political innovations rather than, you know, a static document. So that's one. And I think the other. was Federalist number 14. And I think it resonates with me because ⁓ Madison challenged that prevailing belief that republics had to be small. So as an Indian coming from the world's largest democracy, ⁓ I find it fascinating that one of the founders was already arguing that scale need not undermine democratic governance. And that was way ahead of his time. ⁓ Of course, the United States of 1787 ⁓ was smaller compared to current India. But the broader question of how large ⁓ and diverse societies govern themselves again remains deeply relevant. So I think these two stood out for me as an Indian. Grant, you mentioned one already. I'll give you a chance to mention another one if you want, because I didn't because that wasn't like the that wasn't the task when you when you brought that up. No, ⁓ you were right. No, it's you're very kind, but I I don't want you to let you up the hook. I think you need to tell us yours. So I I I ⁓ give you my time. Okay. Well, you know, yeah you see the floor. I appreciate that. ⁓ what is it in the Senate? I can't remember what the actual my I can't remember the phrase. ⁓ god, yeah. I don't know. I you I'd be able to remember it if I wasn't on the spot. ⁓ the ⁓ my fate my my two favorites that are kind of forgotten is one by Hamilton and one by Madison. ⁓ eight and forty-one. because they emphasize the importance of union. You know, I think of the starkest ways possible, two different ways, again, two different people writing them. ⁓ Hamilton just you know, emphasizes over and over and over again like the positive good that comes from the union, ⁓ the possibilities of the union. And ⁓ you know, concerns about, you know, concerned about the the the union collapsing into states and what that will mean for people. But Madison in 41 addresses it more specifically and more narrowly. ⁓ and I get part of that is because he's writing later. And part of it is because it's Madison and not Hamilton. Who's thinking about it in slightly different terms? What he's justifying the need for a standing army. And he says that, you know, ⁓ against the anti-federalist critique that no state militias are enough. And Madison argues that ⁓ the standing army allows us to ⁓ you know, a standing army might seem like an imposition on your liberty, but without a standing army, we're going to collapse into constituent parts, like Hamilton mentioned in Federalist Eight, ⁓ or if without the Union, we're going to collapse into the constituent parts that'll eventually go to war against each other. And if you think a national standing army among all the colonies is a ⁓ an infringement on your liberty, wait till you see what, if you happen to live in South Carolina, what a standing South Carolina army will be like on your liberties. And I think that's a really important point. And especially when in twenty twenty six, when there's a lot of casual discussion about the continent of the the union splitting and ⁓ we'll just have a so you know, ⁓ we'll just have a civil divorce or something like that. Now you know, the natural divorce conversation, as if it's just that easy. ⁓ as if there aren't people who are attached to various ideologies that live in don't live in every part of the country. But if nothing else, the notion that you could have the country split into two or three or four or five or six or fifty and not have there be relentless conflict that will require standing armies that will require huge volumes of taxation and national service in order to maintain is silly. And I think that ham that both Hamilton Hamilton brings up the fear and Madison argues, I think more narrowly what the consequences are of that. Final thought. Again, 'cause we're kind of running out of time here. ⁓ final thoughts. So I I do think Federalist fifty one gives us what should be the motto of all political historians and ⁓ and this is and political theorists. I think I'll follow on what Rebecca said. So Masson writes, What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? And ⁓ I mean that's more or less I think what ⁓ I mean that should be ⁓ what we think about as political historians, right? It's Government is just a reflection on how we work, right? And and how we can work best. And I you know, I think that's I mean, that's in some ways the thesis of the Federalist Papers, to me at least, is just a long reflection on human nature and and and government as that reflection, you know, something like that. So that would be ⁓ if we could make that our motto. I ⁓ I guess we could make it the motto of H Ball if we wanted. ⁓ we're in charge of that at least. I think one of the things that realized Through reading the Federalist papers, is that you cannot understand contemporary American politics without understanding the constitutional imagination of the founders. It's almost impossible, at least that's what my experience has been like. Whether you're looking at debates over presidential power or the Supreme Court, federalism ⁓ polarization, I think the language of those debates. Was largely established in these essays. And they've stood the test of time. ⁓ again, as someone studying the United States from India, I don't read the Federalist papers because ⁓ I expect them to solve today's problems. That's not what I seek anyway. ⁓ I read them because they help me understand why Americans continue to frame political disagreements in constitutional terms, and that to me is their enduring value. Which I think is very uniquely American. So I think that is one thing. And from an outsider's perspective, I feel like one advantage of ⁓ studying the United States from outside is that you're constantly comparing rather than assuming. So rather reading the Federalist papers wasn't asked, and I wasn't asking whether the founders were right in every aspect. That was not at all the intention, and never is. I was asking why they made the choices that they did and what those choice choices can. ⁓ I guess teach us about constitutional democracy more broadly or as a subject. I think they encourage us to probably think institutionally, comparatively and historically, qualities that are again increasingly important in today's times. At least that's what I think. Rebecca. Yeah, I I hope this podcast has been really helpful for ⁓ students that are, you know, ⁓ studying for their quals, but I also hope that it ⁓ helps people realize the importance of reading the Federalist papers and not just reading sort of the big hits, right? 10 and 51 being sort of the main ones. I think when I was an undergrad, ⁓ 10 and 51 were the only ones that we read. ⁓ and I think that if those are the only ones that you read, you don't really you know, fully understand ⁓ what the intention behind the constitution was. And so I understand, you know, it's it can be kind of daunting to read all of them, but I feel like we've each ⁓ been able to draw out ⁓ some of the lesser known ones and then also some of the other ⁓ more well-known ones besides 1051. So hopeful, hopefully ⁓ listeners can go back and pick up their Fed papers. I have a small one here. I think this is like the most popular one. It's only like four or five dollars. And, you know, just open it up and and see what and see what you can learn from Publius. Yeah. Marie. I have enjoyed this discussion so much. And ⁓ one of my favorite things about this is seeing this through the perspective of a Cree, because you've able you've been able to show us here how You know, this is American political philosophy that we're talking about, but we're so in it. And to see how it's influenced other democracies has just been fascinating in this discussion. I also like Rebecca's idea here of instead of looking at what the Federalists missed, what looking at what the anti-federalists got right. I think this is going to reframe the way that I present this to my classes, even just reframing this debate here. ⁓ I'm I really appreciate that you said that. And overall, the Federalist papers are extremely important. our founding, whether we agree with all of the points made, whether they've changed, whether they missed things, whether they didn't, these are foundational documents and I agree with Rebecca. Read them. Listen to our podcast as you always do. But this is one of those works that you should read. You should read the Federalist papers in total and you will get ⁓ a bet you will have a better understanding of the United States and our government going forward. Yeah. ⁓ I'll I if occasionally in this discussion I evinced a bit of a defensiveness about the Federalist papers, which I think probably came through, ⁓ it's because I I I coming from Canada, sometimes the Federalist papers on the American constitutional system i are denigrated and just dismissed. And nobody bothered to actually read the documents. Nobody bothered to actually, and you know, when you there's a lot of questions that are answered if you read the Federalist papers that people have. If you just read the the answers, why they did things that sometimes they're even if as we've discussed. It wasn't necessarily maybe what was exactly in the minds of the people on the floor in Philadelphia, but it's a r you know, maybe a post facto rationalization or a post facto attempt to understand what was actually happening. and ⁓ I I just think that they are the most interesting distillation of American political philosophy, in my mind, and one of the most interesting and a foundational work in liberal political philosophy. ⁓ because it's practitioners, it's not just grand theorists, it's not just the Ivory Tower, it's people who are actually involved. And I just think it's th they're hardly perfect. ⁓ but I do think that American historians particularly, but all Americans, ⁓ and anybody anybody who's interested around the world should pick it up and read it, because I do think there's a lot of very interesting a lot of very interesting insight there. I mean, we didn't even talk about 78. One of the one of the truly great innovations of the Constitution is like judicial review and the whole notion of a Supreme Court. Right. Right. But we have really hardly talked about it, but we know we're running out of time now. But anyway, I just wanted to thank everybody. I learned a lot from the discussion. Thank you very much. It's ⁓ happy July fourth. And ⁓ Yeah well thank you, Rob and Marie, for letting us crash your party. ⁓ fun. No, we're happy. Happ happy to have you guys, ⁓ happy to have you guys aboard and looking forward to doing it again soon. ⁓ happy July fourth, everybody. ⁓ enjoy some fireworks, Marie. Okay, maybe you don't have to enjoy the fireworks, Marie, but you know. Everybody else enjoy it for me. We'll enjoy it for you. All right. Thank you.