not need a bill of rights is because the american government is different from the british government. in the british model, the government granted rights to the people gradually. think of magna carta. the american government is very different. government does not grant rights to the people. the people delegate powers to the government. the people are sovereign. and so madison was concerned that if there were a bill of rights that any rights not listed would be assumed that we do not possess them. ultimately, he comes around and introduces the bill of rights and the first congress to bring the antifederalists on board to create unity. if we go about this carefully,

we can make this work. the bill of rights can become a sort of schoolmaster perhaps to the american people, where we teach ourselves our own rights and responsibilities. >> objects, the bill of rights was a victory for the anti-federalist. it is something we take for granted today. >> that is correct. about half the states when they ratified the constitution proposed additional amendments. most of the states had adopted the constitution immediately after the declaration of independence in 1776. in most of the states they had a supper bill of rights. -- separate bill of rights. the federalists were caught off guard. they had to respond to the argument why don't we have one?

they did not get around to do it until federalist 84. one of the arguments was to say that rights were protected when there is no power to violate them which somehow suggests the government had more power, hamilton also said we do have a bill of rights, it is spread throughout the constitution. he cited in article three section two the fact that in a criminal trial you have to have a jury. there is a guarantee of habeas corpus and a guarantee of against bills of attainder. he wanted to say we do not need to specify rights, but we have done it. further he said some of these things like freedom of the press, how would you even define freedom of the press to begin with? it was not very persuasive and i

think it was a good compromise. madison might have been the last politician who kept his promise and proposed a bill of rights. >> good evening and thanks for joining us here on books that shaped america. we are talking about the federalist from 1787 and 1788. this is an interactive program as most programs on c-span are. we want your input. if you can't get through on the phone, 202-748-8003 is our text

number. we will begin taking those in just a few minutes. we want to show you a picture of an actual federalist essay. it was published in the new york daily advertising -- advertiser. were these federalist papers written for elites, where they to persuade the thomas jefferson's and the george washington's, or were they written for regular folk? >> i think they were written for regular folks heard they were written to the people of new york. they might have been more complex than the average person could understand, but they certainly were written for the people. >> let's go back to the federalist papers.

this is from federalist number 10. james madison is talking about fa in america. ong the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed accurately developed than itsre tendency to break and control the violence of faction. colleen sheehan, what was he referring to? >> he says that a faction could be a majority or a minority of the whole. what is decisive about affection is it is contrary to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent interests of the community. it is unjust. faction is what destroys popular government. what madison sets as the goal in federalist 10 is to control the violence of faction.

because he wants the majority to rule, but not a majority faction. somehow the majority that will rule has to be a just majority. if it is not just majority to begin with, it has to be refined through the constitutional processes. >> two websites i want to mention to you. c-span.org, books that shaped america. more specifically, if you go to th federalt page, you will get other de that will add to your understandinofhe federalist. secondly, if you want to learn more about alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay, we

have a companion webcast -- podcasts talking about the authors. you can go wherever you get your podcasts and download it there. judge, john jay is the third and the least significant? >> he wrote the fewest essays, but he was ill during part of the time. he was a tremendously important political figure. he was the president of congress, later the governor of new york, later the chief justice of the supreme court. he was very valued. he was very reasonable. he commanded a lot of respect. the fact that he did not produce as much was attributed more to the fact that he was busy and sick. in the first 10 essays she wrote

a number of them but then was unable to continue. >> colleen sheehan, did the federalist papers have an impact on the united states? >> i want to say yes. this has become a real controversy amongst scholars, how influential were the federalist papers? in terms of persuading the people of new york or the other states, some of the essays were republished and they did have some effect. but the long-term effects of the federalist papers is substantial as well. jefferson called this the best commentary on the principles of government ever written. i do not know if that is a bit of an exaggeration. but the federalist papers are a profound work of politics,

bordering on political theory. in the papers, madison and hamilton in particular set forth an understanding of not only the processes of the u.s. constitution, but in the federalist papers we can see the forest for the trees. they teach us about the purpose of the constitution, about why we have a constitution. the purpose is self-government. there is a lot to be learned from that and that is relevant to us still today. >> well, i agree with the sentiments. they started writing the federalist papers at the end of october 1787 and by the end of 1787, several states had already

adopted the constitution before half of the federalist papers had been written. none of the people in georgia or delaware had read the vast majority of those papers. i do not think it is possible to say the federalist papers convince people to vote in a particular way. there are too many logical steps to draw that conclusion. in the long run, it has been tremendously influential, especially in the supreme court. in all of the early cases, chief justice marshall refer to them as being the pinnacle of being an explanation of the constitution. can the states impose additional restrictions on who can run for congress? can the federal government

required the state officers to enforce federal laws? the supreme court has looked at the federalist papers and taken understandings from them and decided the cases. it would be impossible to say they have not had an influence. >> let's hear from our viewers. gabriel from durham, north carolina. >> thank you so much for this. this is excellent. my question is about -- the first question has to do with the influence of the federalist papers on each of the individuals writing based on classic is him on that time, like montesquieu.

or if you think it was intertwined. the second question is, would you be able to share with us what you thought their biggest contribution was for each writer? i wanted to get your view on those two things. >> thank you for that. classicism and the three writers biggest influence. >> it is remarkable how much medicine knew about antiquity --

how much madison knew about antiquity and ancient government. when he goes through one historical setup facts after another, it is almost too much for people who have not had that kind of education to understand all of the points he has made. the difficulty was that they were trying something new and they wanted to convince the public that this would work. and they had to draw from historical examples. it was not easy to come up with things that were comparable because most of the republics had been very small prior to this bid proposal. so the drew on everything they ewut. i do not know how persuasive it was to the average person but it

is impressive looking at it now. >> these gentlemen were very well-educated in the classics. montesquieu was probably the most weighted -- read. montesquieu is very influential. just a few years after writing the federalist papers, madison wrote an essay on montesquieu. he disagrees with him on some things. he thinks montesquieu gave up on popular government too quickly.

madison also thinks that civic education is important. educating the minds of the citizenry. he thinks montesquieu gave up on that and thought it was a task for the ancients. and so in that sense, there is a breaking away from some of the modern thinkers. >> i am going to read from federalist number 39, james madison. is this in any case radical at the time? it is evident that no other form would becilable with the genius of the people of america, with the fundamental principles of the revolution, or with that honorable determination which animates every voter you freedom. >> in article 39, madison was

talking about principles of republicanism. he wanted to show that all of the elements of the federal government was fit within these principles of republicanism. he had to explain how republicanism differed from other forms of government and how it would just -- best allow the new government to succeed. points that he made was that everybody in the government should be selected by the people, that everybody should have a term limit or be subject to a term by good behavior. he went through and discussed how congress, the president and even the courts would be able to behave in this way.

what were the strengths and weaknesses of madison and hamilton? hamilton was a lawyer. when you look at the numbers from the 50's, 60's and 70's where he discusses what each provision of the constitution does, that is hamilton's -- strength. >> let's take ellen in east chicago, indiana. you are on books that shaped america. >> thank you for accepting my call. my question is not as deep as the other guy. you said the man who wrote the federalist papers were not in favor of a bill of rights, but somehow it did get in there.

what was the meaning of the second amendment? my understanding the second and third amendment came out at the same time and involve the protection of the states. they were housing troops in people's homes. my understanding it was maybe for the protection and security of the states. and the third amendment being we do not want to house troops in our homes. >> let's get a response. any response for alan? >> you ask a good question. the problem madison and hamton

had is the constitution that was produced did not have a bill of rights. this was not something that completely escaped the constitutional convention. george mason thought there should have been a bill of rights. but here they had to defend this constitution eve though it did not have a bill of rights. they made some arguments for why a bill of rights was not necessary. they are not the strongest arguments, but they had to say something. ultimately, i think they came up with a good compromise which is we will ratify the constitution and then add the bill of rights. what about the meaning of the second amendment? the second amendment was not added until after the debate over the constitution, so you will not find any discussion of that in the federalist papers. you have to look at other historical sources. >> i was getting the idea that

lynn was intimating that state's rights had an issue to play in the bill of rights. >> i am not exactly sure, but it is a good question about the second amendment, what is its meaning? i would leave it to other scholars. whether it is to protect individual rights or if you have standing armies, you need a well-established militia. allen also referred to quartering troops. a man's home is his castle, right? so there is of the idea that individual rights is throughout

the bill of rights. my own understanding is that the second amendment is not replaced by a standing army. but that is an individual right. but that is something i leave to the experts. >> we spent time talking about alexander hamilton, james madison, john jay. but first, we want to show you a walking tour of new york city, where alexander hamilton wrote his essays. ben rubin is our guide. >> i am coming to you from wall street in new york city. we are standing outside 57 wall st, the site of alexander

hamilton's home and law office in the months following his attendance at the constitutional convention in philadelphia. after the document was drafted, he returned home to new york and began the work of getting it ratified in his home state. teaming up with john jay they wrote a series of essays under the shared pen name publius, which would be published in newspapers to convince new yorkers to ratify the constitution. i am standing on the corner of wall street and broad street. i had of me is the site of the new york stock exchange, but behind me is the side of the first u.s. capitol after the constitutional convention. in the fall of 87, the capitol moved here from philadelphia. one of the delegates was james madison, who himself had been

one of the principal architects of the constitution. it was at the convention in philadelphia where hamilton and madison had first become acquainted. it was hamilton who suggested to jay that madison as a virginian with a unique perspective on the constitution to be brought in as the third author of the federalist. standing in hanover square which in 1787 what had been eight bustling commercial area. this was also known as printing house square for the large number of printers who took up residence on the outskirts of the square. this is where many new yorkers would have been exposed to the federalist papers for the first time. they were published sequentially in three newspapers, a new york packet, the independent journal

from october 1787 until august 1788. we are standing outside fraunces tavern which has been here since 1719. by the time the papers were published, it was one of the most reputable taverns and would have been well known to hamilton personally as he had been a member of the new york sons of liberty before the revolution who had held their meetings here. this is also the site of george washington's farewell to the continental army in 1783. because they drew from a wide swath of social classes in new york city, taverns like this one and coffee shops around the city served as one of the principal venues for conversation and debate about the federalist and anti-federalist papers. >> we are looking at the tour of

new york city. it sounds to me like there was political intrigue between john jay and alexander hamilton and then james madison when they got to philadelphia. >> it could very well be the case. we do not know everything about it. madison wrote a letter explaining some of the creation of the federalist papers and they asked others as well to join them, but were turned down. the interesting thing about that is that they also had day jobs while they are still cranking out two essays per week for seven months. it is really remarkable what they were able to accomplish. they did not have a lot of time to coordinate. they did not get to read each other's essays before they were printed.

they had a general outline. if they came out a little bit different, that is just how they came out. >> so basically, no email. >> certainly not. >> did this ever get published in a book, all of these essays that were printed in the new york newspapers? >> yes, and that book is called the federalist, first published in 1788. they had to write their own essays. the first federalist paper was published october 27th, 1787. within the week before that, sarah jay, john jay's wife through a dinner party in new york at their home, westchester

county. it was all men. among the men there was alexander hamilton and james madison. i would have liked to be a fly on the wall at the dinner party to hear what the three of them might have talked about. >> was this book the a bestseller? -- the federalist a bestseller? >> i do not know how many copies it sold. maybe the judge knows. >> it was printed in two volumes. it was published in march. the second volume was published at the end of may. the printer printed 500 copies and it was not a bestseller because we know that fall, the printer wrote a letter complaining he still had hundreds of copies unfold.

initially it was not, but if you are lucky enough to have one of the original 500, you are in very good luck today. >> there was this term that became used in the federalist papers. federalist 51, james madison, checks and balances. ambitit be made to counteract ambition. the interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. it may be a reflection on human naturesuch devices s be necessary to control the abuses of government. what is government itself bu the greatest of all reflections on human nature. if men were angels, no government would be necessary. was this a pretty novel idea at the time? >> i do not think it was a novel

idea, but i do not think it had been articulated quite as clearly, especially the idea that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. he went on to speak about what was required to make sure the government could govern the people and also govern itself. and having separation of powers. having federalism, both state governments and federal governments. concepts of having different bodies elect the president and select the judges and the senate and the house. all of those things were thought to put controls on this possibility that faction would

cost the government to be harmful. >> let's hear from george in new york city. >> thank you to c-span for this wonderful program. my question deals with the fundamental principle enshrined in the constitution that no person is above the law. apart from the immunity granted by article one, clause six of the u.s. constitution, which grants legislators immunity, do the federalist papers speak to the question of immunity of the president of the united states or of judges, or do the federalist papers speak as to the question of immunity more broadly that can give us some guidance today? >> they do not speak expressly to those topics, at least not to my knowledge.