Peter Berkowitz: Why Colleges Don't Teach the Federalist Papers

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of The Federalist for understanding the principles of American government and the challenges that liberal democracies confront early in the second decade of the 21st century. Yet despite the lip service they pay to liberal education, our leading universities can't be bothered to require students to study The Federalist...

Small wonder it took so long for progressives to realize that arguments about the constitutionality of ObamaCare are indeed serious.

The masterpiece of American political thought originated as a series of newspaper articles published under the pseudonym Publius in New York between October 1787 and August 1788 by framers Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The aim was to make the case for ratification of the new constitution, which had been agreed to in September 1787 by delegates to the federal convention meeting in Philadelphia over four months of remarkable discussion, debate and deliberation about self-government.

By the end of 1788, a total of 85 essays had been gathered in two volumes under the title The Federalist. Written at a brisk clip and with the crucial vote in New York hanging in the balance, the essays formed a treatise on constitutional self-government for the ages...

And thus so many of our leading opinion formers and policy makers seem to come unhinged when they encounter constitutional arguments apparently foreign to them but well-rooted in constitutional text, structure and history. These include arguments about, say, the unitary executive; or the priority of protecting political speech of all sorts; or the imperative to articulate a principle that keeps the Constitution's commerce clause from becoming the vehicle by which a federal government—whose powers, as Madison put it in Federalist 45, are "few and defined"—is remade into one of limitless unenumerated powers...

Actually, I can understand this, as it requires a unique, dedicated class, that if properly done would almost have to be a college upper division course in political science.

A familiarization course at high school level would best be done as multimedia video set on DVD. The first three DVDs would just be historical, philosophical and legal background, from Roman Law to Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Renaissance and the British Empire legal system, the Age of Enlightenment, and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.

A lot of the ideas and concepts came out of the Age of Enlightenment philosophers in particular, so there would need to be a review, the highlights of Adam Smith, John Locke, etc.

Then there would have to be an extended description of Colonial America, including its wars, battles, immigration, growth, and development into a separate country, disconnected from European affairs in many ways.

The French and Indian War followed by Pontiac’s War were some of the most vicious, bloodthirsty affairs, and fundamental to the backgrounds of the founding fathers.

With this as the context, the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers as well, becoming incredibly important documents for the creation of our nation, and explain why the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution were so intensely debated.

Importantly, the last DVD should then delve back into history. What happened after the revolution? Where did the revolution go? (from the French Revolution to the continent-wide revolutions of 1848). How did the founding fathers continue with their invested ideas?

And how did the Civil War change everything?

He would have been present for the formation of the Virginia/Randolph Plan. Could he have, from the beginning influenced what generally emerged as our Constitution four months later?

I doubt it greatly. I think that plan was structured long before the convention. What was constructed in the time you describe was the strategy for selling it. I think Hamilton's "President for life" pitch was a ruse.

Madison shredded the Paterson Plan on the 19th. Had the best orator and debater in modern history, Patrick Henry been present, maybe the vote to accept the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussion by 7-3 would have been closer.

Again I doubt it. Our creditors had spoken.

I also suspect John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York would have remained to influence events if another large state delegate like Henry had likewise remained to oppose key elements of the Constitution.

Here is where I think you may be right, and it might have collapsed the process. Had Henry tackled international law as a theme, he might well have succeeded in exposing this Trojan horse of Hamilton's for what it was and is. There is no way he could have got away with the kind of snow job he pulled in Federalist 75 in a debate setting. The whole project might then have been seen for the ruse that it was and possibly collapsed. I agree that this was a 'you of little faith' moment for Henry.

In his defense however, it is very hard for most FReepers to appreciate the depth of the hidden masonic agenda of Enlightenment antipathy for Christianity Henry knew he was facing. One need only read Hume or Voltaire knowing the kind of correspondence many of the prominent founders shared with the European philosophes to realize that to many of these men, their faith in "God" was not that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while public attributions to same were a deliberate cover.

Fast forward to June 1788 and Henry almost kept Virginia out of the Union. Had he attended the Constitutional Convention he would have undoubtedly affected the final product.

Here you, in part, contradict your thesis. Had he affected the product it might have been more likely to sell. Perhaps he was gambling on his absence permitting flaws that would be fatal to ratification in Virginia.

If it met with his disapproval, he would have been as well equipped as Madison to debate the finer points. As it was, he was not, and federalists carried the day.

I think you give too much credit for persuasion. Hard political allegiances had pretty well determined the numbers in advance. Communications media were so slow it would have been a done deal before the people could rally to Henry's arguments. The BOR had mollified the deal, but even that had its own Federalist "poison pill" in the original 14th Article. Good thing the idea was rejected until the Feds later rammed through the 'usurpation by selective enforcement' gambit in the 14th Amendment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.