The Federalist Papers
It's a constitutional cage-match.
- Course Length: 2 weeks
- Course Type: Short Course
- Category:
- History and Social Science
- High School
Schools and Districts: We offer customized programs that won't break the bank. Get a quote.
Get ready for the ultimate throw down.
Influenced by European philosophers' deep thoughts about man's nature, Federalists wrote a constitution that bound states together to form a representative public. But the Anti-Federalists protested our Constitution, thinking the United States should be separate mini-countries with separate mini-democracies.
As time's taught us, democracy is complicated—and if you don't believe us, this courseis here to convince. The Federalist Papers are essays and letters written to convince the people to get the Constitution put into effect. Reading them not only teaches non-fiction reading skills and history lessons, but also teaches about human nature itself.
Get ready for readings and activities about
- how people are evil and chaotic.
- how people are sorta good at heart but go crazy trying to protect their possessions.
- how hugely diverse populations are ultimately better served by one, standard government.
- how bullies and complainers will always exist, and there's really nothing we can do except damage control.
Like we said, the Federalist Papers aren't just about Federalists. The type of government that people create reveals the needs and ambitions of that society, so get ready for ten lessons about what makes both past and modern-day America tick.
Unit Breakdown
1 The Federalist Papers - The Federalist Papers
The Constitution wasn't ratified in a day. Read selections from the Federalist Papers, as well as some of the historical and philosophical documents that influenced them, to get to the bottom of the hottest political debate of the 1700s: Should the States unite, or is society just too innately evil to nationally control?
Sample Lesson - Introduction
Lesson 1.01: Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke...Oh My!
Lots of things changed during the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s. Men wearing long ruffled collars came and went; people also began to perform successful surgeries and acknowledge things like "gravity."
Another one big evolution was political philosophy. As hundreds and hundreds of years in the sciences was suddenly proven untrue, some people began to think, "Hey! Maybe that king really doesn't get to rule over us because God said so. Maybe he's just making that up!"
In this lesson, we'll examine three revolutionary individuals who presented alternative theories and critiques of government:
- Thomas Hobbes
- John Locke
- Jean Jacques Rousseau
Each of their arguments incorporates the State of Nature, a fictitious happy place where we all lived before systems of government.
Their European arguments and ten-hour-long games of "Would You Rather" will shape the debate that would take place in Philadelphia in 1787. That's why, before we meet the Federalists, it's important to meet their influences.
Sample Lesson - Reading
Reading 1.1.01: The Cynic, the Optimist, and the Hippie
Divine Right
As we hinted earlier, most rulers of yesteryear held their power through divine right—"divine" meaning "put in place by God." Throughout the majority of history, rulers have held power through monarchies (inherited through family) or despotism (using cruelty and violence to gain power).
In both monarchies and despotism, rulers were able to fall back on divine power to justify their rule and their actions. Check out these examples:*
- "Our new four-year-old king has the burden of governing, from God."—Old Timey Scotland
- "I'm gonna buy whatever sweet palace decorations I want, because God made me king for a reason."—Old Timey France
- "I'm going to use my Mandate of Heaven to overthrow this corrupt despot and put my own family in power, because I'm the Son of Heaven."—Old Timey China
*These are 100% not actual quotes from these historical time periods.
Naturally, divine right was problematic, but the god-fearing people of older times accepted it. After all, monarchies were all that most of them knew; they hadn't imagined another way.
Until these philosophical bad boys came along....
Thomas Hobbes
Beginning with Thomas Hobbes in the middle of the 1600s, the Divine Right argument began to be picked apart. Hobbes witnessed the English Civil War (1642-1648), which pitted two factions against each other—and was also the first time a king was publically executed. With no more king, Hobbes now had the opportunity to consider other possibilities.
In the middle of the 17th century (translation: the 1600s), Hobbes looked around and saw all sorts of advances being made in the sciences. The causes of natural events in the world were rapidly being deciphered, from plants to animals to the solar system. Hobbes thought human beings could be thought of and dissected in the same way. With this influence of discovering new ideas, and being totally afraid of the Civil War, Hobbes wrote his political manifesto, Leviathan.
In Leviathan, Hobbes theorized that human beings operate primarily on the basis of self-interest. In other words, we are selfish brats who will do whatever we can at whatever cost to take care of ol' numero uno.
Hobbes imagined a time when humans lived in nature, outside of any organized society. No police force, no grand buildings, not even a Department of Motor Vehicles. He called this lawless society the State of Nature. In this fantasyland, there are two important points to be made:
- We are all essentially equal.
- We are all essentially selfish.
According to Hobbes, it's in human nature for all of us to act like the first edition of Survivor. We all want to be the last one standing, and we'll use any variety of methods to defeat our rivals—even those who may appear stronger. Because of that, "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man mark life in the State of Nature solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Let's repeat that line, because it's a famous quote (especially that last part of it).
It's Hobbesian human nature to have "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Famous quote repeated; let's move on.
Hobbes argued that our main goal is self-preservation and staying alive at any cost. In order to bring some order out of the chaos, we would have to all agree to leave the State of Nature and give up certain rights and freedoms in order to be at least reasonably secure.
How do we give up those freedoms and learn to not attack each other? To Hobbes, the only practical way to do this is to give all power to a supreme figure or ruler. Because of that, even though Hobbes argued against the divine right theory, he still reached the conclusion that a monarch of sorts is the best person to turn our rights over to. He also thought we should avoid rebellion at all cost, or else we'd get to that scary post-apocalyptical State of Nature.
Best to stick with strict authority, thought Hobbes. At least we'd be safe from the zombies. In his eyes, rebellion would take us right back to the State of Nature—a place to be avoided at all costs.
John Locke
Locke wasn't nearly as cynical about human beings as Hobbes was. (Think of him as the Pumba to Hobbes' Timon.) In fact, Locke thought that the State of Nature was a pretty decent place, because at the heart of things, human beings are pretty decent.
Whereas Hobbes viewed the State of Nature as something akin to Battle Royale, Locke viewed it in a more familial way. Locke called general human decency the Law of Nature. According to the law, you don't mess around with other people's "life, health, liberty, or possessions."
So, it's much easier to imagine a more peaceful State of Nature if everyone followed Locke's Law of Nature. And, realistically, people should be able to see the logic of playing nice, especially if they were motivated by their private property (homes, land, etc). And if they didn't treat others according to the Law of Nature, the job of the government is also to protect our Natural Rights—health, liberty, and possessions.
Locke also pointed out that if a government fails in its job to protect humans' beloved life, liberty, health, and property, then the people have the right to overthrow that government. Of course, this would mean a return to the State of Nature until the people can cook up something new. For Locke, that's not such a bad thing, even though for Hobbes, State of Nature is something to be avoided at all costs.
Check out a little more about Locke's ideas here.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
For Rousseau, the State of Nature was a place of peace and harmony. Ever an optimist, Jean Jacques Rousseau thought that nature provided more than enough for everyone. Competition was unnecessary.
As populations grew, however, people began to live in bigger groups. When crops and animals were domesticated and other labor saving devices invented, there was more leisure time. Blue-collar and white-collar jobs were created. People began to look at each other and see differences. Vices like jealousy, pride, and selfish competition emerged. Rousseau argued that what primarily fueled all this was the invention of private property. So, he condemned private property as a socializing force, unlike Locke, who praised it.
Watch this scene from the '80s comedy The Gods Must be Crazy for an idea of what Rousseau is talking about. In it...
- A pilot nonchalantly drops an empty bottle of Coke out of his plane over the Australian outback.
- An Aborigine soon comes upon the bottle and takes it back to his village.
- At first the bottle offers the village many benefits, but it soon disrupts their peaceful lives by introducing jealousy and competition to their community. Whoops.
Rousseau argued that as larger and larger communities were formed, the landowners who were in possession of property saw the advantage of forming governments—governments that could be designed to protect their property. In modern terms, the 1% created governments to protect their interests and keep the 99% in a subservient role.
Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau argued that people didn't leave the State of Nature and willingly enter into a Social Contract to act "all civilized"; the State of Nature was taken away from the people by a small minority of property owners. (If you haven't noticed by now, there's an interesting mix of both Hobbes and Locke in Rousseau's writings.)
Rousseau sums up the problem at the beginning of his famous essay, The Social Contract, by writing that "man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains." He then proceeds to offer his solution to this problem: Since we're all born equal and free, no person or group has the right to rule over others.
With this idea, Rousseau developed the idea of monarchy and representative democracy, like the kind we have in the United States. Rousseau argued for a pure democracy, where "the people" make the decisions. In order to achieve this, the individual has to agree to transfer his individual rights to the rights of the people as a whole. Rousseau calls this coming together, this collective decision-making body, the "general will."
(Sure, you might want to drive a monster truck downtown while texting the whole time, but you've entered a social contract to obey the same rules that the general will set for everyone.)
In order to enjoy as many of those freedoms as possible, people must come together regularly to make collective decisions about the laws that will govern everyone. Rousseau actually said that this coming-together could only happen within a small geographic area. In a larger area, people would not be able to travel to a central location; they would know nothing about their neighbors; too many different interests would divide them. This early idea of voting is pretty different than what we do today, but his seed was planted.
And yet...sentiments like these made up a core argument the Anti-Federalists have against the Constitution when it was produced in Philadelphia in 1787.
Cliffhanger? You betcha.
Sample Lesson - Activity
Activity 1.01a: Top of the Charts
So, it looks like we have three very different philosophers on our hands. And you know what we here at Shmoop like to do when we like to see differences and similarities? Make a chart!
(We're very easily entertained.)
Part One
Download our Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau graphic organizer. Return back to our readings, and fill out the chart as you reread.
- In the first column, jot down what each guy thought about the State of Nature. Peaceful? Loving? Hate-filled? Barbaric? Provide a brief explanation for each.
- In the second column, record the type of government each guy thinks will originate when people agree to form a social contract and leave the State of Nature. Briefly explain why.
- In the third column, briefly explain whether or not the people would have the right to rebel against the government they created when they left the State of Nature. And, of course, include the why.
Part Two
Grab three blank pieces of paper and some colored pencils, because it's art time. Create a cover for what you think each of these critics' books might look like—for example, for Hobbes, we might put a picture of him in the background, but then put fire, chaos, and looting in the background. (And then slap the title, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, front and center.)
The titles of the books where these philosophies first began to appear that you'll be illustrating (or creating on a Word document with found images, if colored pencils really aren't your thing):
- Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
- Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke
- Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen by Jean Jacques Rousseau
Once you're done with these beauties, take pictures of each, upload them into a single document, and submit them—as well as that chart—below.
Representing Information Rubric - 25 Points
Sample Lesson - Activity
- Course Length: 2 weeks
- Course Type: Short Course
- Category:
- History and Social Science
- High School
Schools and Districts: We offer customized programs that won't break the bank. Get a quote.