In 1854, Abraham Lincoln said of Thomas Jefferson that he 鈥渨as, is, and perhaps will continue to be our most distinguished politician.鈥� We may now say this of Lincoln. And just as Lincoln meant that one must understand Jefferson鈥檚 politics and principles鈥攈is deeds and his words鈥攖o understand the United States, so must we now say that to understand the United States we must understand Lincoln鈥檚 deeds and words. We offer this exhibit on Lincoln as an aid in the effort to understand him and, through him, what remains the world鈥檚 most important experiment in self-government.

The exhibit focuses on eight of Lincoln鈥檚 most important speeches, offering analytical and interpretive introductions to them. It also offers a variety of additional materials that provide historical context for the speeches. This context, including Lincoln鈥檚 understanding of the character of the American people, formed the political terrain Lincoln navigated, guided by his understanding of America鈥檚 political principles.

Background to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Crisis over Slavery

The Constitution made two compromises over slavery, although it never mentioned the peculiar institution. It allowed 鈥渁ll other persons鈥� to be counted as three-fifths of a free person for purposes of taxation and representation (Article I, section 2). This was a compromise among various views of the persons and property that should be represented in the House of Representatives, which was itself part of a compromise over whether individuals should be represented in both the House and the Senate or if the states alone should be represented in the Senate. The Constitution also provided that the importation of persons by a state could not be prohibited for 20 years after its adoption, until 1808. This was a compromise between those who wanted to ban the importation of slaves immediately and those who wished for there to be no constitutional power to prohibit the slave trade (Article I, section 9). In addition to these two compromises, the Constitution also contained a provision that 鈥渘o person held to service鈥� in one state would be discharged from that service in another. On the contrary, each state accepted an obligation to return such persons to those to whom their labor was due under the laws of a state (Article IV, section 2). This provision became known as the fugitive slave clause. To implement it, Congress passed the first fugitive slave law in 1793.

In 1807, in what Lincoln once called 鈥渁pparent hot haste,鈥� Congress passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves on the first day of January 1808. Four years previous to the passage of this law, the United States had acquired the Louisiana territory. After Louisiana, admitted to statehood in 1812, the first territory from this acquisition to apply for admission as a state was Missouri in 1819. It applied for statehood with a constitution that permitted slavery. At that time, there were 11 free and 11 slave states. Missouri was not admitted as slave state until Maine applied for statehood and was admitted as a free state. As part of this compromise, Congress included in the Missouri statehood enabling act the provision that in the remainder of the Louisiana territory slavery would forever be prohibited north of the line 36鈥�30鈥�.

The separation of Texas from Mexico through a revolution and the establishment of Texas as a separate republic in 1836 raised the issue of the new republic鈥檚 admission to the Union, and implicitly the fate of all the land that Mexico held west and northwest of Texas. When Texas joined the Union in 1845, war with Mexico followed. (Mexico considered Texas still part of its territory.) Early in the war, when President Polk asked for an appropriation for peace negotiations, Representative David Wilmot (D-PA) proposed an amendment to the appropriations bill stating that slavery would not be permitted in any territory gained from Mexico in the peace negotiations. The bill passed the House, but not the Senate, where through state representation, the slave interest was stronger than in the House, whose membership represented the larger populations of the free states. Whenever a version of Wilmot鈥檚 amendment was subsequently proposed, it met the same fate. The treaty that eventually ended the war, which had to be ratified only by the Senate, did not contain a prohibition of slavery. The contest between free state and slavery advocates over this territory, and what remained of the Louisiana territory, was the final phase of the sectional conflict leading to the Civil War.

Following the Mexican War, California applied for admission as a free state. At that point, the number of free and slave states was equal (15 each). Consequently, California鈥檚 application for admission precipitated a crisis, as Missouri鈥檚 had 30 years before in the same circumstance. The crisis was resolved by the Compromise of 1850, which consisted of five separate pieces of legislation. Stephen A. Douglas, a Democratic Senator from Illinois, was responsible for getting the legislation passed. The bills admitted California as a free state; set the boundary between Texas and New Mexico and compensated Texas for giving up land claims beyond that boundary; set up territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, with the provision that the territories could eventually enter the Union as either free or slave states; abolished the slave trade (but not slavery) in the District of Columbia; and strengthened the federal fugitive slave law.

When it came time to organize territories north of Texas that were part of the Louisiana purchase, Senator Douglas again took the lead. He proposed in 1854 a Kansas-Nebraska bill that rescinded the Missouri Compromise line of 36鈥�30鈥�, which was supposed to have been established forever, and included a provision that the status of slavery in a territory was up to its inhabitants. This was the doctrine of popular sovereignty鈥攖he people should decide鈥攖hat Douglas proposed as the best way to resolve the slavery controversy. Its immediate practical result, however, was to foment civil violence. Once slavery got into a territory, it would receive the protection of territorial law, since if property in men was not illegal, then that property required the protection of the law. Protected by the law, slavery would grow and become ever harder to abolish. Immediately, therefore, both free state and slave state advocates, in and beyond Kansas and Nebraska, fought over who would predominate, and whether this peculiar form of property would be allowed. As one scholar has put it, 鈥渢he Kansas-Nebraska Act legislated civil war on the plains of Kansas.鈥�

The civil war in Kansas aggravated the sectional conflict and pointed toward the greater civil war that would begin six years later. This conflict became even more likely with the Dred Scott decision (1857). In this decision, the Supreme Court held (7鈥�2), that persons of African descent were not citizens; had 鈥渘o rights which the white man was bound to respect;鈥� and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories, since the right to hold property in slaves is 鈥渄istinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.鈥� But if that right was in the Constitution, should not southerners have the right to take their property into any state? Did not the Dred Scott opinion suggest at least the possibility that a future court ruling might in fact declare this to be so and thus make slavery, rather than freedom, national?

It was to keep freedom national that Lincoln returned to politics during the controversy over the Kansas-Nebraska act. Douglas based his solution to the slavery controversy, as well as his ambition to be president, on popular sovereignty, the idea that the people should choose. But Lincoln saw the danger to self-government and human liberty in an understanding of popular sovereignty divorced from the judgment that slavery was wrong. The people choose because all men are created equal and so no one has a right to choose for another, without the other鈥檚 consent. If the people chose slavery鈥攃hose inequality鈥攖hen they chose to undermine popular sovereignty and thus their own freedom. Popular sovereignty was the strongest principle among Americans, but Lincoln through his words and deeds had to show the people that the only thing more important than that principle was its ultimate cause, human equality. More difficult, he had to show the people that preserving their liberty meant restricting their freedom: there were some things that not even the people could rightly choose to do.

Documents in the Exhibit

• “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions” (Lyceum Address)
  • Essay by David Tucker
• Temperance Address
  • Essay by David Tucker
• Speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Act (Peoria Address)
  • Essay by Joseph R. Fornieri
• Cooper Union Speech
  • Essay by Andrew Lang
• Fragment on the Constitution and the Union
  • Essay by Lucas Morel
• First Inaugural Address
  • Essay by Peter C. Myers
• Gettysburg Address
  • Essay by Jason Jividen
• Second Inaugural Address
  • Essay by David Tucker

Other Exhibit Components

• Presidential Election Maps, 1848-1864
• Timeline of Events
• Background to the Slavery Conflict

The post The Lincoln Exhibit appeared first on 色中色.

This collection of primary source documents is intended to help readers identify and think about some of the key ideas and issues surrounding the U.S. Presidential election of 1912. The 1912 election was a significant event in American history for a number of reasons, representing the high-water mark of the so-called Progressive Era in American electoral politics. While we might simply associate this with Theodore Roosevelt鈥檚 short-lived Progressive Party, the election featured three major presidential candidates (and one significant minor candidate), represented by four separate parties, each of which professed to champion 鈥減rogressive鈥� politics in one fashion or another.

Exhibit Organization and Contents

The Election of 1912 exhibit consists of a scholarly explanation and analysis of the ideas that formed the basis of the candidates’ positions, the politics surrounding the three-way split of the electoral vote, and an assessment of the immediate fallout of the election. This analysis, by Dr. Jason Jividen, is supported by a selection of original documents. These documents are available as a list, and are mentioned within Dr. Jividen’s essay, below.

Table of Contents

• Election of 1912 Essay (below)
• Documents Selected for this Exhibit
• Electoral Map and Associated Data for 1912

The Progressive Era

The Progressive Era lasted from the early 1890鈥檚 to the early 1920鈥檚, encompassing much more than the political party that backed Roosevelt in 1912. Progressivism was a broad intellectual and political movement that cut across political parties. In general, progressives sought to reinterpret the American political order by giving the people more direct power over all levels of government, and in turn, by giving a growing administrative state more power to regulate social and economic life. After the Civil War, the closing of the frontier was accompanied by increasing economic specialization, big business, large accumulations of wealth, and the rise of industrialization and urbanization. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, progressives argued that our political and economic circumstances had changed so fundamentally that individual equality of opportunity was increasingly threatened. In order for average Americans to achieve material satisfaction, many progressives claimed, government at all levels would need more power to address monopoly, to regulate key sectors of the economy, and to pursue various labor, banking, tariff, and currency reforms, among other proposals. Political corruption and so-called 鈥渟pecial interests鈥� compounded the problem, many argued, and some suggested that American institutions such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, representation, and a cumbersome amendment process all frustrated progressive reform. Such features might warrant careful reevaluation and many progressives called for introducing more 鈥渄irect鈥� democratic mechanisms into American politics, including initiative and referendum, the direct election of senators, direct primary elections, the recall of elected officials and judges, and even the popular recall of judicial decisions. This is the political and economic landscape upon which the 1912 presidential election was conducted.

The Presidential Election of 1912

The Republican Party

Held on November 5, the election featured three major presidential candidates, represented by three political parties: incumbent William Howard Taft (Republican Party), New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson (Democratic Party), and former President Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive Party). Perennial presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, Eugene V. Debs, rounded out the field as the most successful of a slate of minor candidates. The election is often studied by historians and political scientists due to the success of Roosevelt鈥檚 鈥淏ull Moose鈥� Progressive Party. The Republican Party had split into what some regarded as 鈥減rogressive鈥� and 鈥渃onservative鈥� wings, with the latter being especially critical of the progressive embrace of a more direct democracy, tariff reform, and their willingness to challenge the constitutional authority of state and federal courts. In his famed 1910 鈥淣ew Nationalism鈥� Address at Osawatomie, Kansas, Roosevelt sought to reconcile these two wings in advance of the 1912 election. Although Taft had been Roosevelt鈥檚 hand-picked successor in the Republican Party, by 1912, the two had a personal and political falling out, with each arguing that the other had abandoned the principles of the party. Roosevelt accused Taft of embracing a de facto oligarchy, distrusting the people, and favoring the special interests of wealthy corporations. Taft accused Roosevelt of flirting with mob rule and engaging in a reckless disregard of constitutional norms, especially his support for the popular recall of controversial judicial decisions.

Challenging Taft for the presidential nomination, Roosevelt took advantage of the emerging prevalence of direct primaries across twelve states, carrying nine of them, securing a significant number of delegates over Taft and Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette, another Republican candidate for president. Ultimately, however, Roosevelt lost the party nomination to Taft at the 1912 Republican Party National Convention, (see Taft’s letter accepting the nomination) where state party leaders still controlled the nomination system. Incensed, Roosevelt formed the 鈥淏ull Moose鈥� Progressive Party in order to challenge Taft. Continuing the theme he had begun in 1910, Roosevelt called his campaign the New Nationalism. In 1912, a very popular and charismatic former President Roosevelt made the most successful third party run for the presidency in American history, earning just over 27% percent of the national popular vote total and carrying six states with 88 electoral votes. The new party called for numerous reforms, including various forms of labor legislation, proposals for more direct democracy, lower tariff rates, income and inheritance taxes, women鈥檚 suffrage, and the regulation and breaking up of trusts. On the Progressive party鈥檚 program and Roosevelt鈥檚 critique of Taft and the Republicans, see the 1912 Progressive Party Platform, as well as Roosevelt鈥檚 鈥�The Right of the People to Rule鈥� and his speech accepting the 1912 Progressive nomination, 鈥�My Confession of Faith.鈥�

Taft, for his part, garnered roughly 23% of the national popular vote, carrying just two states with eight electoral votes. Contemporary scholars sometimes follow Roosevelt鈥檚 lead in branding Taft as a 鈥渞eactionary,鈥� laissez faire conservative and a stumbling block to progressive reform. However, readers of primary sources, such as Taft鈥檚 letter accepting the Republican nomination, will see that the incumbent also claimed to pursue progressive politics, noting the party鈥檚 record on labor reform, pure food and drug legislation, trust-busting, and conservation, among other issues. (On the party鈥檚 program, also see the 1912 Republican Party Platform.) Careful observers will note that Taft鈥檚 brand of progressivism, if we may call it that, is an emphatically 鈥渃onstitutional鈥� progressivism, that is, one that seeks progressive reform under the rubric of existing constitutional forms and political processes. Above all, Taft worried about a progressive politics that flatters short-term, passionate, and potentially tyrannical majority rule. This argument is especially clear in Taft鈥檚 speech 鈥�The Judiciary and Progress,鈥� where he critiques Roosevelt鈥檚 proposals for the popular recall of judicial decisions.

Democratic Party

Progressivism, again, cut across party boundaries in 1912, also characterizing the Democratic party. Political scientist and New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson was not lacking in progressive bona fides, yet he was forced to court the more traditional, Jeffersonian wing of the Democratic Party, and he only secured his party鈥檚 nomination after the 46^th ballot of the convention. Wilson was a leading academic in progressive circles for many years and his scholarly work (especially on the presidency, the administrative state, and the principles of the American Founding) shows him to have been a chief architect of the American progressive movement. However, in his 1912 campaign rhetoric, Wilson sometimes pitched his New Freedom as a campaign in the service of Jeffersonian individualism and state鈥檚 rights, promising to restore economic competition by busting (rather than merely regulating) trusts, lowering tariffs, and reforming the banking system. These things, Wilson claimed, showed the daylight between his New Freedom and Roosevelt鈥檚 New Nationalism, the latter all too ready to compromise with select trusts in the form of regulation. (See the 1912 Democratic Party Platform and Wilson鈥檚 speech accepting the Democratic nomination.)

Wilson was, of course, elected President in 1912, gaining nearly 42% of the national popular vote total, carrying 40 states with 435 electoral votes. Some scholars suggest that, despite Wilson鈥檚 efforts to distinguish himself from Roosevelt, in practice the New Freedom was very much like the New Nationalism, with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, and major national legislation on issues like child labor and the eight-hour work day.

Socialist Party

Finally, we should note the role that Indiana socialist Eugene Debs played as a minor presidential candidate in 1912. This was his fourth of five runs for the presidency, and the one in which he was most successful, gaining 6% of the national popular vote, but carrying no states and securing zero electoral votes. Other Socialist candidates had recently made inroads into the American political scene, with Milwaukee electing a Socialist mayor and a party member elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. For his part, Debs claimed that the major parties were in the pocket of wealthy businessmen, the trusts, and the banks, serving an oligarchy that oppressed average American workers. Debs used the platform to offer a full-throated defense of socialist political and economic policies, calling for鈥攁mong other things鈥攖he nationalization of railroads and many other industries, various forms of labor legislation, women鈥檚 suffrage, initiative, referendum, and recall, and the abolition of the electoral college, the U.S Senate, and the presidential veto power. (See the 1912 Socialist Party Platform and Debs鈥� 鈥淧olitical Appeal to American Workers.鈥�)

The post The Presidential Election of 1912 appeared first on 色中色.

Introduction to this Exhibit

by Gordon Lloyd

Introduction to the Constitutional Convention

by Gordon Lloyd

The Constitutional Convention as a Four Act Drama

by Gordon Lloyd

Day-by-Day Summary of the Convention and Timeline

by Gordon Lloyd

Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

by James Madison

The Delegates

by Gordon Lloyd

Convention Attendance Record

by Gordon Lloyd

Committee Assignments Chart

by Gordon Lloyd

Selected Correspondence from the Convention

Compiled by Gordon Lloyd

Major Themes at the Constitutional Convention

by Gordon Lloyd

Artistic Interpretations of the Constitutional Convention

by Gordon Lloyd and Jacklin Boyadjian 

Entertainment of George Washington at City Tavern in Philadelphia

The Constitution

The post The Constitutional Convention appeared first on 色中色.

by John Zvesper

“New democracies have to find their way towards attitudes, practices and institutional arrangements that complement free elections with a culture and a constitution of freedom.”

The American founding did not end with the ratification of the Constitution. The experience of political party making in the 1790s set into motion the regime created by the constitution making of the 1770s and 1780s. Americans can learn important things about their politics today by reflecting on the experience of the 1790s. If American political experience has lessons for other democracies, some of the most important of those lessons can be found here.

TeachingAmericanHistory is proud to present The Election of 1800 and the First Peaceful Transfer of Political Power in digital format, for use by teachers, students, and citizens as they seek to better understand the American Founding and the legacy it provided for successive generations.

Prologue

The lessons of the 1790s can be concisely summarized under four rubrics: partisan principles, public respectability, partisan vices, and individual statecraft.

Chronology

Chapter 1: First Principles

The first ever peaceful transition of power after bitterly contested popular elections fought by principled partisans occurred in America, in the “Revolution of 1800,” after elections that gave the Republican party led by Thomas Jefferson control over both the presidency and congress. Both the Republicans and their opponents, the Federalist party, believed that the fundamental principles of democracy were at stake in the conflict between the two parties.

Chapter 2: The Lessons of Constitution Making

In the new nation in the 1790s, it is particularly important to note the lesson about executive power that Americans were beginning to draw from their political experience in the 1770s and 1780s. Here we see them learning from their failures as well as from their successes.

Chapter 3: Anxious Confidence

The founders expected that parties of interest (“factions”) would emerge, but such parties would be involved in legislative deliberations only as “interested parties.” Parties of principle, on the other hand, were to be avoided altogether, for a number of reasons.

Chapter 4: Doubts and Disunity

If Federalism had offended only with its political elitism rather than also with its moral, social and economic project, the partisan conflict of the 1790s might well not have occurred, or at least might not have been so deep and bitter that it produced the beginnings of party government.

Chapter 5: The Republicans Organize

In 1791, Madison, Jefferson, and other soon-to-be leaders of the Republican party began to be much more disturbed about the direction of the government’s domestic policy under Hamilton’s influence. The interdependence of domestic and foreign policy, which Hamilton’s project was intensifying, meant that Hamilton as the principal domestic policy official and Jefferson as the principal foreign policy official had a choice. They either had to share many views, which they increasingly did not, or one had to let the other have his own way, which neither was prepared to do.

Chapter 6: The Republicans Persuade

The Revolution of 1800 was built on communication networks among those actually or potentially sympathetic to the Republicans鈥� revolutionary goals.

Chapter 7: Foreign Affairs Delay the Republican Victory

From 1793 to 1800, foreign policy disputes and their domestic repercussions erupted onto the scene even before the Republican-controlled House produced by the elections of 1792 convened. This eruption showed that the Republicans had to make a more sustained and more comprehensive partisan challenge to Federalist control of the federal government. The events of 1793-1800 had the effect of making this partisanship seem more necessary, even though these events also made both parties more deeply and bitterly opposed to each other.

Chapter 8: Suppression, Protest, and the Revolution of 1800

While the Republicans at the end of the 1790s were becoming wiser about international politics, the Federalists were becoming less wise about domestic politics. The Federalist party’s determination to triumph over domestic political opposition was so counterproductive that it can be seen as one of the main reasons for the Republican party’s triumph in the Revolution of 1800.

Chapter 9: The Conclusion – The Revolution of 1800 and Party Government

Electoral revolutions in democracies can be revolutions without swords, if they are about differences of partisan principles (however ideological), but not if they really are disputes about the superiority of the principles of democracy themselves.

Glossary

Historical Documents

Appendix I: The Debt Assumption Issue

Appendix II: Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural

Bibliography

The post The Election of 1800 appeared first on 色中色.

• Federalist 1: Introduction, Alexander Hamilton

Part II | “The Utility of the Union”

• Federalist 2: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force & Influence, John Jay
• Federalist 3: The same Subject continued, John Jay
• Federalist 4: The same Subject continued, John Jay
• Federalist 5: The same Subject continued, John Jay
• Federalist 6: Concerning Dangers from War between the States, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 7: The subject continued, and Particular Causes Enumerated, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 8: The effects of Internal War in producing Standing Armies, and other institutions unfriendly to liberty, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 9: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 10: The same Subject continued, James Madison
• Federalist 11: The Utility of the Union in respect to Commerce and a Navy, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 12: The Utility of the Union in respect to Revenue, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 13: The same Subject continued, with a view to Economy, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 14: An Objection drawn from the Extent of Country, Answered

Part III | The “Insufficiency” of the Articles of Confederation

• Federalist 15: Concerning the Defects of the Present Confederation, in Relation to the Principle of Legislation for the States in their Collective Capacities, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 16: The same Subject continued, in relation to the same Principles, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 17: The Subject continued, and Illustrated by Examples, to Show the tendency of Federal Governments, rather to Anarchy among the Members, than Tyranny in the Head, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 18: The Subject continued, with further Examples, James Madison
• Federalist 19: The Subject continued, with further Examples, James Madison
• Federalist 20: The Subject continued, with further Examples, James Madison
• Federalist 21: Further defects of the present Constitution, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 22: The same subject continued, and concluded, Alexander Hamilton

Part IV | The Minimum “Energetic” Government Requirement

• Federalist 23: The necessity of a government, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 24: The subject continued, with an answer to an objection concerning standing armies, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 25: The subject continued, with the same view, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 26: The subject continued with the same view, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 27: The subject continued, with the same view, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 28: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 29: Concerning the militia, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 30: Concerning taxation, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 31: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 32: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 33: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 34: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 35: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 36: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton

Part V | “The Great Difficulty of Founding”

The Difficulty with Demarcations and Definitions

• Federalist 37: Concerning the difficulties which the convention must have experienced in the formation of a proper plan, James Madison
• Federalist 38: The subject continued, and the incoherence of the objections to the plan, exposed, James Madison
• Federalist 39: The conformity of the plan to republican principles: an objection in respect to the powers of the convention, examined, James Madison
• Federalist 40: The same objection further examined, James Madison

The Difficulty of Federalism

• Federalist 41: General view of the powers proposed to be vested in the union, James Madison
• Federalist 42: The same view continued, James Madison
• Federalist 43: The same view continued, James Madison
• Federalist 44: The same view continued and concluded, James Madison
• Federalist 45: A further discussion of the supposed danger from the powers of the union, to the state governments, James Madison
• Federalist 46: The subject of the last paper resumed; with an examination of the comparative means of influence of the federal and state governments, James Madison

The Difficulty of Republicanism

• Federalist 47: The meaning of the maxim, which requires a separation of the departments of power, examined and ascertained, James Madison
• Federalist 48: The same subject continued, with a view to the means of giving efficacy in practice to that maxim, James Madison
• Federalist 49: The same subject continued, with the same view, James Madison
• Federalist 50: The same subject continued, with the same view, James Madison
• Federalist 51: The same subject continued, with the same view, and concluded, James Madison

Part VI | “The True Principles of Republican Government”

The House of Representatives

• Federalist 52: Concerning the house of representatives, with a view to the qualifications of the electors and elected, and the time of service of the members, James Madison
• Federalist 53: The same subject continued, with a view of the term of service of the members, James Madison
• Federalist 54: The same subject continued, with a view to the ratio of representation, James Madison
• Federalist 55: The same subject continued, in relation to the total number of the body, James Madison
• Federalist 56: The same subject continued, in relation to the same point, James Madison
• Federalist 57: The same subject continued, in relation to the supposed tendency of the plan of the convention to elevate the few above the many, James Madison
• Federalist 58: The same subject continued, in relation to the future augmentation of the members, James Madison
• Federalist 59: Concerning the regulation of elections, James Madison
• Federalist 60: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 61: The same subject continued, and concluded, Alexander Hamilton

The Senate

• Federalist 62: Concerning the constitution of the senate, with regard to the qualifications of the members; the manner of appointing them; the equality of representation; the number of the senators, and the duration of their appointments, James Madison
• Federalist 63: A further view of the constitution of the senate, in regard to the duration of the appointment of its members, James Madison
• Federalist 64: A further view of the constitution of the senate, in regard to the power of making treaties, John Jay
• Federalist 65: A further view of the constitution of the senate, in relation to its capacity, as a court for the trial of impeachments, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 66: The same subject continued, Alexander Hamilton

The Presidency

• Federalist 67: Concerning the constitution of the president: a gross attempt to misrepresent this part of the plan detected, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 68: The view of the constitution of the president continued, in relation to the mode of appointment, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 69: The same view continued, with a comparison between the president and the king of Great Britain, on the one hand, and the governor of New York, on the other, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 70: The same view continued, in relation to the unity of the executive, and with an examination of the project of an executive council, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 71: The same view continued, in regard to the duration of the office, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 72: The same view continued, in regard to the re-eligibility of the president, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 73: The same view continued, in relation to the provision concerning support, and the power of the negative, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 74: The same view continued, in relation to the command of the national forces, and the power of pardoning, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 75: The same view continued, in relation to the power of making treaties, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 76: The same view continued, in relation to the appointment of the officers of the government, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 77: The view of the constitution of the president concluded, with a further consideration of the power of appointment, and a concise examination of his remaining powers, Alexander Hamilton

The Judiciary

• Federalist 78: A view of the constitution of the judicial department in relation to the tenure of good behaviour, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 79: A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the provisions for the support and responsibility of the judges, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 80: A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the provisions for the support and responsibility of the judges, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 81: A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the distribution of its authority, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 82: A further view of the judicial department, in reference to some miscellaneous questions, Alexander Hamilton

Five Miscellaneous Republican Issues

• Federalist 83: A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the trial by jury, Alexander Hamilton
• Federalist 84: Concerning several miscellaneous objections, Alexander Hamilton

Part VII | Analogy to State Governments and Added Security to Republicanism

• Federalist 85: Conclusion, Alexander Hamilton

听

听

The post The Federalist Papers appeared first on 色中色.