The final draft of the United States Constitution had been written and signed by the delegates. In a lengthy process, the states’ representatives had debated and discussed, written and rewritten key articles in an attempt to create a workable government to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation. But before the new governmental guidelines could become the official government of the United States of America, nine states were required to ratify the final document, and there were voices raised in opposition across the nation.

In an earlier article, we met some of the opponents — the Anti-Federalists — and examined their concerns: too much power at the federal level, no Bill of Rights, an executive branch that potentially could gain additional power by the process of appointment, and a suspicion of the judicial branch’s relationship with the legislative branch, the voice of the people. Interestingly, they also argued that the legislative branch had too much power and could suppress the fundamental freedoms that had motivated the fight for liberty and independence. Patrick Henry, George Mason, Mercy Otis Warren, and others wrote articles and pamphlets urging caution, and ratification became a hot topic in small towns and large cities. The debate was particularly fierce in New York, critical to the final tally.

But the Federalists — those urging the ratification of the United States Constitution — were not sitting idle. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay decided to take their position to the people, and The Federalist Papers were born. Designed to address the concerns raised by the Anti-Federalists, the three prominent political theorists and writers divided the issues and set to work. In an age when there was no Fox News or CNN, no New York Times or Chicago Sun-Times (or Chicago…), persuasive writing in essay form was the most effective tool for garnering public support. After all, each legislature would vote either for the Constitution or against the Constitution, and the future of the nation hung in the balance.

The final draft was signed in September 1787, and by early October the first of the 85 essays written in support of ratification appeared in the Independent Journal, signed by the pseudonym “Publius,” harkening back to the days of the Roman Republic. From 1787-1788, the essays would be carried in a number of New York newspapers, and most would be compiled into a book, The Federalist, published in 1788. Today we regard The Federalist Papers to be among our most important political documents and acknowledge the authors as critical to the final ratification.

Hamilton wrote the first essay and then Jay, also a New Yorker, wrote the next four articles. He would only author one other essay before withdrawing from the project, leaving Hamilton to ultimately write a total of 51 essays with James Madison penning 29.

Hamilton couched his political position — anonymously, of course — in the argument that the debate was not really about the ratification of the Constitution. Instead, he claimed that the debate was much more fundamental; the question was “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

Could man be trusted to govern himself? Or was man destined to always be governed by “divine-right monarchs” or tyrannical leaders? Was the self-government experiment doomed because the very citizens of the new nation did not believe themselves capable of self-government? Serious questions.

What are the most memorable and influential statements in The Federalist?

Federalist #10 is often cited as the most important because Madison takes on French political philosopher Montesquieu’s argument that republics only work for small groups of people. (Madison and the other Founders had incorporated Montesquieu’s concept of a divided government.) If a republican form of government would not work for a larger nation, then the Constitution was inherently flawed. But Madison argued that the competing interest of different factions of people (rural and urban, agrarian and merchant-based business, etc.) would safeguard the republic and make it “less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.” Madison would continue this analysis with 20 other essays, often driving home the idea that taxation was a necessary tool of government. Just as the early government could not respond to Shay’s Rebellion because there was no money for an army or means by which to obtain funding, taxation would allow the federal government — based on the voice of the people via the legislative branch — to respond to threats.

Each essay was skillfully written to address public concerns. But I confess to having a favorite, and it is Federalist #51. Admittedly, I am a fan of Madison’s notes on the constitutional debates and consider him to be a brilliant political thinker, and perhaps his influence throughout the months of meetings motivates my choice. (I have a second confession: I leave in five days for Independence Hall and a moment with Madison…)

Federalist #51 includes the lines: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” I consider those two sentences to be fundamental to our belief in a republican form of government.

We — men and women — are not angels and therefore we must govern ourselves wisely as engaged and informed citizens. Thanks, Jimmy Madison, for stating the need for a constitution so succinctly. Good job. You need your own musical!