of failure. we have the chance hamilton is saying to do it right. to show that all people is really capable of governing themselves. that is what the american project was about. the federalist papers starts out by saying so. >> judge, structuring society in a sense. >> yes, i think in your quote, one that -- thing that comes across is sounds like the articles of confederation was a disasters. in many ways that was an overstate. if you read the federalist, they were quite respectful despite seeing its flaws. under the articles o confederatio cgress kept the union together. it won a war, and negotiated a favorable peace treaty, it

figured out what to do about the western lands. but there were problems and most of what he talks about is how to improve the situation. not that everything was wrong, but that there were specific problems that might make this a flash in the pan if they do not get fixed. >> how different was the constitution approved in 1787 to the articles of confederation? >> some of the major problems with the articles of confederation was congress did not have the powers to govern. it could not raise taxes directly. it cannot raise an army by itself directly. it could pass laws, but had no way to enforce the laws. a had no judiciary. without the ability to raise taxes, it could not successfully borrow money. another problem was that because

each state had one vote, it was not a very fair system because some states were larger. the constitution attempted to address all of those problems by giving congress the powers the directors thought were necessary. >> why were these papers published under publius? >> publius is the pen name they chose. publius valerius publicola was a roman aristocrat who was known to be in favor of republicanism. a man of the people. they chose that name. it was common in the 18th century to have a pseudonym. it is not from whom the advice

comes that is the most important thing, but whether the advice it be good. the papers are put out there. nobody except probably one person knew who publius valerius publicola was. otherwise it is kept a secret for some time. the one person who was told is the man whom everybody respects the most. and that is washington. >> judge, do you invoke the federalist papers today in your work at the u.s. court of appeals for the armed forces? >> i have not had much occasion. the federalist papers are a source of evidence of the original meaning of the constitution. but they are not the source where you can look up a sentence and that decides a legal issue.

they are a collection of the arguments that were made by supporters of the constitution that addressed key themes such as -- when we say congress has powers and can do everything necessary to carry out those powers, what we mean by that, it is the big ideas i think in the federalist papers. whether or not you cite them in a particular case does not mean the big ideas are not still important. >> let's give you a sense of whatmeca was like in 1787. thpopulation was close to 4 million. washington became the president in 1789. there were 11 states admitted to the union by the end of 1789. the economy was based mostly on

farming. the federalist papers themselves, 85 essays published in 1787 and 1788. alexander wrote to 51 of those essays, james madison 29 and john jay route 5 -- wrote five. they were written under the n name publius. the independent journal in the new york packet where the original publishers. the library of congress has an original federalist in book form and we are going to show it to you here. this is at the library of congress. they also have a letter from thomas jefferson to james madison talking about the importance of a bill of rights. here is a little bit on that.

>> i am julie miller. i work with early american documents. this is a letter from the james madison papers. this is a letter that madison wrote to jefferson in the summer of 1788. james madison was one of the authors of the federalist essays and later on he would draft the amendments that would become the bill of rights. in this period, he was not sure yet of the bill of rights. in this letter to jefferson, he says the delay of a few years will assuage the jealousies artificially created and will point out the faults which really call for amendment. he thought it would take a little time before they knew it would need to be amended.

what he is saying is that a bill of rights should wait until later on. this is thomas jefferson's reply. what jefferson does is she thinks madison for -- he thanks for the news but says he knew it already. madison has sent him a copy and jefferson says he already has a copy. jefferson flatters madison and says with respect to the federalist, the three authors have been named to me. he says i read it with care and

pleasure and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands and by that he meant john jay. and he continues and not a great deal by hamilton. jefferson continues, does the highest honor to the third, by that he means madison who he is writing to, as being the best commentary on the principles of government. these two letters by jefferson and madison preserve the context of which the federalist essays were written and also how they were received. >> arizona state university professor colleen sheehan, what was the role of the bill of rights in the federalist papers? >> first of all, i have to

mention that arizona state university and the school of civic and economic thought and leadership also has a first edition of the federalist papers. it is a real treasure here at our university. what is the role of the bill of rights and the federalist papers? basically, publius and is why we do not need a bill of rights. both hamilton and madison argue we do not need a bill of rights. the anti-federalist our argument for it -- the anti-federalist are arguing for it. the reason he said we do 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 factions in america. among the numerous advantages

promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its 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 meion to you. c-span.org, okthat shaped america. more scifically, if you go to the federalist pe, you will get other videos that will add to your understanding of the 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 they dw on everything they knew about. 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 any case radical at me? it is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the pef america, with the fundamental principles of the revolution, or with that honorable determination which imates 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 hamilton had is the constitution that was produc did not have a bill of rights. this was not something that

completely escaped the constitional convention. george mason thought there should have been a bill of rights. but here they had to defend this constitution even 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 rce