A discretion of such latitude would give room to elude the force of the provision. It is also admitted that an absolute prohibition against raising troops, except in cases of actual war, would be improper; because it will be requisite to raise and support a small number of troops to garrison the important frontier posts, and to guard arsenals; and it may happen, that the danger of an attack from a foreign power may be so imminent, as to render it highly proper we should raise an army, in order to be prepared to resist them.
But to raise and keep up forces for such purposes and on such occasions, is not included in the idea, of keeping up standing armies in times of peace. It is a thing very practicable to give the government sufficient authority to provide for these cases, and at the same time to provide a reasonable and competent security against the evil of a standing army — a clause to the following purpose would answer the end:.
As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and have often been the means of overturning the best constitutions of government, no standing army, or troops of any description whatsoever, shall be raised or kept up by the legislature, except so many as shall be necessary for guards to the arsenals of the United States, or for garrisons to such posts on the frontiers, as it shall be deemed absolutely necessary to hold, to secure the inhabitants, and facilitate the trade with the Indians: A clause similar to this would afford sufficient latitude to the legislature to raise troops in all cases that were really necessary, and at the same time competent security against the establishment of that dangerous engine of despotism a standing army.
The same writer who advances the arguments I have noticed, makes a number of other observations with a view to prove that the power to raise and keep up armies, ought to be discretionary in the general legislature; some of them are curious; he instances the raising of troops in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, to shew the necessity of keeping a standing army in time of peace; the least reflection must convince every candid mind that both these cases are totally foreign to his purpose — Massachusetts raised a body of troops for six months, at the expiration of which they were to disband of course; this looks very little like a standing army.
But beside, was that commonwealth in a state of peace at that time? So far from it that they were in the most violent commotions and contents, and their legislature had formally declared that an unnatural rebellion existed within the state. The situation of Pennsylvania was similar; a number of armed men had levied war against the authority of the state, and openly avowed their intention of withdrawing their allegiance from it.
To what purpose examples are brought, of states raising troops for short periods in times of war or insurrections, on a question concerning the propriety of keeping up standing armies in times of peace, the public must judge.
It is farther said, that no danger can arise from this power being lodged in the hands of the general government, because the legislatures will be a check upon them, to prevent their abusing it. This is offered, as what force there is in it will hereafter receive a more particular examination.
At present, I shall only remark, that it is difficult to conceive how the state legislatures can, in any case, hold a check over the general legislature, in a constitutional way. The latter has, in every instance to which their powers extend, complete controul over the former. The state legislatures can, in no case, by law, resolution, or otherwise, of right, prevent or impede the general government, from enacting any law, or executing it, which this constitution authorizes them to enact or execute.
If then the state legislatures check the general legislatures [ sic ], it must be by exciting the people to resist constitutional laws. In this way every individual, or every body of men, may check any government, in proportion to the influence they may have over the body of the people. But such kinds of checks as these, though they sometimes correct the abuses of government, oftner destroy all government. According to Federalist No.
Therefore, it is far less likely that there will be one majority oppressing the rest of the people. In fact, an entire group of Americans called the Anti-Federalists spoke out against these writings. Anti-Federalists opposed making the government stronger, in the fear that giving more power to a president might lead to a monarchy.
Instead, they wanted state governments to have more authority. This policy was outlined in the Articles of Confederation , the predecessor to the Constitution. However, it is hard to measure its influence for sure. You should be familiar with no only Federalist No. That way, you can focus on the questions sooner, instead of having to digest all the material for the first time.
College Board has not released past multiple-choice questions of this type, but here is a question similar to the ones that could appear on the APUSH exam:. The correct choice is B. Although Madison proposed the strategy in choice A as a potential option, he ultimately discredited it.
If you want to write about Federalist No. Chase's patriotism was questioned when Hamilton revealed that Chase had taken advantage of knowledge gained in Congress to try to dominate the flour market.
At the time of publication the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Following Hamilton's death in , a list that he had drafted claiming fully two-thirds of the papers for himself became public, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison No.
The scholarly detective work of Douglass Adair in postulated the following assignments of authorship, corroborated in by a computer analysis of the text:. In a span of ten months, a total of 85 articles were written by the three men.
Hamilton, who had been a leading advocate of national constitutional reform throughout the s and represented New York at the Constitutional Convention , in became the first Secretary of the Treasury , a post he held until his resignation in Madison, who is now acknowledged as the father of the Constitution—despite his repeated rejection of this honor during his lifetime,  became a leading member of the U. House of Representatives from Virginia — , Secretary of State — , and ultimately the fourth President of the United States.
The Federalist articles appeared in three New York newspapers: Although written and published with haste, The Federalist articles were widely read and greatly influenced the shape of American political institutions.
Garry Wills observes that the pace of production "overwhelmed" any possible response: And no time was given. However, they were only irregularly published outside New York, and in other parts of the country they were often overshadowed by local writers. Because the essays were initially published in New York, most of them begin with the same salutation: The high demand for the essays led to their publication in a more permanent form. On January 1, , the New York publishing firm J.
McLean announced that they would publish the first thirty-six essays as a bound volume; that volume was released on March 22, and was titled The Federalist Volume 1. A second bound volume containing Federalist 37—77 and the yet to be published Federalist 78—85 was released on May In , George Hopkins published an American edition that similarly named the authors. Hopkins wished as well that "the name of the writer should be prefixed to each number," but at this point Hamilton insisted that this was not to be, and the division of the essays among the three authors remained a secret.
The first publication to divide the papers in such a way was an edition that used a list left by Hamilton to associate the authors with their numbers; this edition appeared as two volumes of the compiled "Works of Hamilton". In , Jacob Gideon published a new edition with a new listing of authors, based on a list provided by Madison. The difference between Hamilton's list and Madison's formed the basis for a dispute over the authorship of a dozen of the essays.
Both Hopkins's and Gideon's editions incorporated significant edits to the text of the papers themselves, generally with the approval of the authors. In , Henry Dawson published an edition containing the original text of the papers, arguing that they should be preserved as they were written in that particular historical moment, not as edited by the authors years later. Modern scholars generally use the text prepared by Jacob E.
Cooke for his edition of The Federalist ; this edition used the newspaper texts for essay numbers 1—76 and the McLean edition for essay numbers 77— The authorship of seventy-three of The Federalist essays is fairly certain.
Twelve of these essays are disputed over by some scholars, though the modern consensus is that Madison wrote essays Nos. The first open designation of which essay belonged to whom was provided by Hamilton who, in the days before his ultimately fatal gun duel with Aaron Burr , provided his lawyer with a list detailing the author of each number.
This list credited Hamilton with a full sixty-three of the essays three of those being jointly written with Madison , almost three-quarters of the whole, and was used as the basis for an printing that was the first to make specific attribution for the essays.
Madison did not immediately dispute Hamilton's list, but provided his own list for the Gideon edition of The Federalist. Madison claimed twenty-nine numbers for himself, and he suggested that the difference between the two lists was "owing doubtless to the hurry in which [Hamilton's] memorandum was made out. Statistical analysis has been undertaken on several occasions to try to ascertain the authorship question based on word frequencies and writing styles.
Nearly all of the statistical studies show that the disputed papers were written by Madison, although a computer science study theorizes the papers were a collaborative effort. The Federalist Papers were written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable. Separate ratification proceedings took place in each state, and the essays were not reliably reprinted outside of New York; furthermore, by the time the series was well underway, a number of important states had already ratified it, for instance Pennsylvania on December New York held out until July 26; certainly The Federalist was more important there than anywhere else, but Furtwangler argues that it "could hardly rival other major forces in the ratification contests"—specifically, these forces included the personal influence of well-known Federalists, for instance Hamilton and Jay, and Anti-Federalists, including Governor George Clinton.
In light of that, Furtwangler observes, "New York's refusal would make that state an odd outsider. Only 19 Federalists were elected to New York's ratification convention, compared to the Anti-Federalists' 46 delegates.
Federalist No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison as the tenth of The Federalist Papers: a series of essays initiated by Alexander Hamilton arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution.
The Federalist Papers, were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October and May The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," primarily in two New York state newspapers of the time: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal.
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. A Close Reading of James Madison's The Federalist No. 51 and its Relevancy Within the Sphere of Modern Political Thought.
what were the federalist papers? () who wrote them? James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. how many essays were published? what name were they released under? federalist James Madison argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. This web-friendly presentation of the original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. Federalist No. 10 || they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two.