Federalist Papers Book Club

Meetings are on the first, third, and fifth Wednesdays of August through November at the Waterbury Public Library.

6:30 - 8:00 PM, upstairs in the nook

Please RSVP to judi@waterburypubliclibray.com

Read online at the Library of Congress
Listen for free on LibriVox
Order a hard copy from Bridgeside Books

"That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles ... [is] absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free..." (VT Constitution Art. 18)

About the Papers

The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written in 1787-1788 arguing in favor of ratifying the new proposed US Constitution. They were written by members of the Convention and authors of the Constitution, and present - in their own words - the strongest case they could for the new system.

What the Founders did was unprecedented, and they did the best they could with ideals and reason alone. But now, we have 250 years of experience to guide us on what's working and what's not. The Federalist Papers Book Club will look at these key decisions made at the nation's founding, and how they've played out in practice throughout our history, and in the present day.

Each session will begin with answering questions to understand what these old and often difficult documents are actually saying. We'll then discuss and analyze their arguments, guided by examples from the past 250 years, to answer key questions including:

  • Has the American experiment worked out like the Federalists thought it would?

  • What did the Founders predict correctly? What did nobody see coming?

  • Are we convinced by their arguments? Would we vote to adopt it if we were there at the time?

  • Would we make the same choices if we were building from scratch today?

About the Authors

James Madison was a Virginia plantation owner and considered the "father of the Constitution." He later became Secretary of State and the fourth US President.

Alexander Hamilton was a New York military officer, lawyer, and banker. He later became Secretary of the Treasury and a Broadway sensation.

John Jay was a New York lawyer and diplomat, and President of the Continental Congress. He later became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Governor of New York.

All three were members of the Continental Congress and delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They used the pseudonym Publius to honor one of the legendary founders of the Roman Republic.

About the Host

Evan Karl Hoffman is a history enthusiast and member of the Waterbury Select Board. He is passionate about civics education and increasing democratic participation.

Detailed Schedule

August 19th: Should we even have a Union?

Essential reading (10,210 words, 1:23:22)

Recommended reading

  • Do you identify yourself more as a Vermonter or an American? Do you feel more connected to the state or national government? Which level of government is doing a better job? Which are you more informed about?

  • Do Publius’ arguments support a unified world government? Would that be a good idea? Is there a limit on how big a country can practically be?

  • If you were to split the US into several smaller countries, where would you put the boundaries? Who would stand to benefit, and who would lose?

  • How does the discussion about “faction” apply in the modern political environment? What might the Federalists say about the two-party system?

  • The Enlightenment view of human nature (see No. 6 and No. 10) is a recurring theme throughout the papers. Do you agree with the Federalists’ opinion of the masses? What about the politicians?

  • What do you think of the authors’ use of a pseudonym, instead of attaching their real names to the project? What are the benefits and drawbacks of anonymity in political discourse?

Key questions

September 2nd: Problems with the Articles of Confederation

Essential reading (10,139 words, 1:15:51)

Recommended reading

Key questions

  • Were the Articles of Confederation really so broken? Could their issues have been fixed without creating an entirely new system?

  • Are there any aspects of the Articles that you see as beneficial, that should have been preserved?

  • Some modern international organizations operate similarly to the Confederation:

    • NATO is a military alliance funded by voluntary requisitions, much like the United States under the Articles.

    • The European Union requires unanimity for most decisions, and depends on member states to implement EU law through their own legislative process.

    These organizations have been successful for decades, but also show signs of strain. Should we take their success as evidence against the Federalists’ argument that confederations are doomed to failure? Or should we take their limitations as evidence the Federalists were right, and are the Articles a roadmap for their future reform or collapse?

  • How might the Articles have handled various stress tests in American history? Particularly slavery, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement, which all involved direct conflict between states and the federal government?

  • In the current moment, would further centralization be a good or bad thing?

September 16th: Federal powers, the military, and taxation

Essential reading (9,707 words, 1:13:57)

Recommended reading

Key questions

  • We’ve had a standing army for about a hundred years now, and it’s mostly been fine. Are there factors that make our current military less dangerous than what existed then? Were the Founders wrong about the dangers? Or were they right, and it’s only a matter of time before they turn on us?

  • What about federal law enforcement? Can they be used against civilians in the same way a standing army allegedly can?

  • Is the two-year time limit on military appropriations an effective way to keep the military in check, and maintain power in Congress? What about modern “must-pass” defense bills?

  • The Federalists seem to expect public insurrection and violent resistance by state governments to be a regular, even common, part of our political system (see No. 28). Why don’t we see that as often as they did in their time? Is the system unbalanced without that assumed check on federal power?

  • The federal government performs many functions that aren’t part of its constitutional mandate, most notably welfare programs. The Federalists present federal powers as basically just a military, a trade bloc, and some taxation to support it. Modern defense spending is about one-eighth of the total federal budget, while Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together are about half.

    • Should these programs be ended just because they’re not explicitly constitutional?

    • Should the Constitution be updated to reflect what we’ve come to expect from the federal government?

    • Are there better ways of providing and funding those services?

September 30th: Federalism and checks & balances

Essential reading (17,310 words, 2:10:38)

Recommended reading

Key questions

  • Which branch of the government has the most power to override the power of the other branches? Are there other ways they could be kept in check?

  • Do the branches of government effectively counter each other? How do national political parties - which coordinate across the branches - affect the Federalists’ reasoning?

October 7th: the executive

Essential reading (6,591 words, 48:54)

Recommended reading

Key questions

  • Is the veto necessary to protect the power of the executive branch? Is that how it’s typically used?

October 21st: Congress

Essential reading (18,272 words, 2:17:40)

Recommended reading

Key questions

  • How many people should each member of Congress represent? How many members should there be overall?

  • In the first Census in 1790, the largest and smallest states had a population ratio of 12.6 to 1 (fully counting both free and slaves). In the 2020 Census, the largest and smallest states had a ratio of 68.5 to 1. Does it still make sense for all states to have the same representation in the Senate? Do small states still need protection from large ones? Are there other ways the states could be represented?

  • Your vote as a Vermonter has 61.5 times as much influence as a Californian’s in the Senate, and 3.4 times as much in the Electoral College. Are you comfortable with wielding more power than other American citizens? Would you be comfortable giving it up?

  • How often should we hold elections? Are there better ways of keeping politicians accountable? Should they be accountable all the time, or do they sometimes need to do things that are unpopular?

November 4th: the judiciary, amendments, & conclusion

Essential reading (8,725 words, 1:03:18)

Recommended reading

Key questions

The Judiciary:

  • If so much of the federal judiciary could be left up to the discretion of Congress, why not other parts of the government?

  • The Supreme Court is often criticized for being unelected and undemocratic, especially after they release an unpopular decision. Do you think electing Justices would be an improvement, or would it just make the Court more political?

    • What about other federal judges? What would a political campaign for federal judge look like?

    • Do all institutions need to be fully democratic? Are there other ways of bringing democratic power into the court system?

Amendments:

  • How did you feel hearing the Federalists defend things that have already been amended out (such as indirect election of senators, or unlimited terms for the President)?

  • Opponents of a Bill of Rights felt that without it, all rights would be reserved by the people, and listing some implies the exclusion of others. Advocates for the Bill of Rights felt that without listing any, we would end up with none. Which do you find more convincing? Which have the courts sided with? If we didn’t have any Bill of Rights, would we have more or fewer rights than we have now?

  • Are constitutional amendments too easy or too hard?

  • Who should have the power to change the constitution? Congress, the states, the President or courts, the people, or someone else entirely?

  • Contrast the federal amendment procedure against Vermont’s amendment procedures.

    • Federal: ⅔ of both houses of Congress or application of ⅔ of states, followed by ratification by ¾ of states.

    • Vermont until 1870: proposed by a separate Council of Censors elected every seven years, ratified by a convention consisting of one delegate from each town.

    • Vermont since 1870: ⅔ of the Senate and ½ of the House elected on a certain schedule (every ten years from 1870 to 1970, every four years since 1974), followed by ½ of each house after the next election, followed by a majority vote of the public at the next election after that.

    • Other states have a wide variety of procedures.

    Which do you prefer? What’s the best way to balance the various powers and interests among the parts of the government and the people? Which has resulted in a better form of government?