BOOK GROUP - The Federalist Papers (Hamilton/Jay/Madison)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays designed to promote the Constitution of the United States during the time of ratification. The works are a window into the time period of the nation, a broad look at how government should work, and is still looked to today in terms of how our founding documents work.

There's a lot to take in here, so I think a more open format is appropriate. I'm personally most curious as to what people may have learned from reading this that they had not previously known, whether reading the papers changed your viewpoints on the authors or the Constitution in either direction, etc. Anything goes, though - share highlights, ask questions, it's all good. Let's keep this fun and freewheeling.

FYI - due to the nomination fiasco of last time and a desire to balance things out, the next book will be The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson. We'll get a more organized nomination system in place in February, but let's plan for a discussion of this book on Monday, 6 March. This will establish a 6 week cycle between books, which seems reasonable.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The one thing that really did stick out to me is that in these Papers it's remarkable how civilized propaganda for one side's political arguments used to be at one time. Enlightenment-era literature places a lot more emphasis on moving from point A to point B while using emotion as an amplifier of the argument as opposed to bitch-slapping one's opponents.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Especially given the toxic media situation of the time, you're absolutely right. Have you read Infamous Scribblers? You might get a kick out of it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I have not read that, no. The one thing I note, however, is that while the Enlightenment is *called* the Age of Reason its authors understood how to make the most judicious uses of emotion at the right moments, as opposed to expecting the power of emotion to propel nonsense on its own power. That particular skill has been under-emphasized in modern times as most people will do simple logic (which is amazingly unpersuasive, in actual fact), or overdo emotions for no more benefit than simple overreliance on logic. I

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Yet more evidence that we live in an age of endarkenment.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Kind of a bland read, could use more explosions. I think it needs to be redone by Michael Bay

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The explosions occurred after Madison got into office. You know: "bombs bursting in air," etc.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I love the typography and layout of that cover. And Hanover Square (where the copy was sold originally) for non-New Yorkers is the area near the financial district near the East River at the very bottom of Manhattan. Here's what it looks like now:

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Was "The Sorrows of Empire" the second most voted on book in the old poll, or why is it the next book?

Can ppl give their own suggestions on books in the future?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Was "The Sorrows of Empire" the second most voted on book in the old poll, or why is it the next book?

Yes, it was second, and there was a lot of desire for something different next round, so I'm playing dictator.

I'll post an entry for nominations later.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I have already commented on the principle author. The content is fascinating in the sense that it predicted many of the events that befell the American empire after its establishment. (I suppose the writing was on the wall.)

Hamilton's writing style grates on me in a way that my writing style grates on some of the folks here. I much prefer the styles of Madison and Jay.

Hamilton had a fascination with ancient Rome that is rivaled only by his more modern parallels. (I am thinking of the founders of Roman rebirth movements in Europe during the previous century.) He makes the same mistake of romanticizing Rome. To someone who focused more on the vicious aspects of Rome, Hamilton's upbeat references come across as either naive or sinister.

For a more up-to-date reflection on the American experience, I recommend Robert Bellah, et al, Habits of the Heart.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

At least they romanticized the Republic. The 20th Century movements idealized the *Empire* which was a much nastier version of the Republic. Rome-fixation is certainly annoying, not least because Rome was an utter clusterfuck at best but it's been a part of West-Eurasia and affiliated geopolitics since Alaric ended the Western Empire, so eh.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The distinction between the Roman republic and the empire is like the distinction between manslaughter and murder. After Numa, it was all down hill.

Alaric was one of the best things to happen to Rome. Augustine commented that Romans preferred life under the Goths to life under Roman rule. The Goths were far less corrupt than Romans.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, no. The Republic was a society with rule of law and the one that actually did most of the conquering (though it did that by being able to bury its enemies in bodies more than actual skill). The Empire had law only insofar as the reigning Emperor could control the legions, and if he so much as stubbed his toe a civil war was inevitable.

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

One of the surprising things was the evident fear of a standing army, and the 'secure' precaution against one:
"an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity."
And yet nowadays the appropriation for the military is passed quite casually, and opposition to a standing army would be seen as absurd.
Yes, different times, different concerns.

I would also like to point out the most Lovecraftian sentence in The Federalist Papers:

However proper such reasonings might be to show that a thing OUGHT NOT TO EXIST, they are wholly to be rejected when they are made use of to prove that it does not exist contrary to the evidence of the fact itself.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I quite like your point about the standing army.

I like the Eisenhower quote about the beware the military industrial complex--and I found it fascinating that of all people, Ron Paul, quoted Eisenhower in a debate last week.

This meme needs to be played more.