The eighty-five essays, today commonly referred to as The Federalist Papers,
were written in 1787 and 1788 in order to help in securing the ratification of the
proposed United States Constitution in the State of New York. Although the essays
were all signed Publius, they were written by three men of different background and,
to some extent, different political ideas. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James
Madison have contributed to the Papers in different quantity. Due to an illness Jay
has contributed only five articles. Hamilton’s and Madison’s contributions are not
always easy to separate but most scholars ascribe twenty-nine articles to Madison
and fifty-one to Hamilton. The authorship of essays “18-20, 49-58, and 62-63 was
the subject of heated historical controversy for more than a century and a half,
because both Hamilton and Madison allegedly claimed authorship of these essays.”
The object of this paper is to analyze the rhetorical approach of Madison and
Hamilton in selected papers. Also, an attempt will be made to determine if, and to
what extent their rhetorical style and political ideas are distinguishable even under
the joint guise of Publius.
The analysis will be undertaken on the examples of four selected papers – No. 10,
54, 84 and 85, which were chosen as representatives of the respective author’s style,
since a detailed analysis of all 85 papers would be to extensive for a term paper.
Contributions by John Jay are deliberately left out since they consist of only 5 papers
which are arguably among the less important ones. Federalist No.10 was chosen as the most famous of Madison’s contributions due to
its prominence within the scholarly debate and the prevailing significance of the
problem discussed in the essay – the dangers or factions within a republic system.
No. 54 was chosen as an example of disputed authorship and due to its treatment of
the complex problem of slavery in regard to the number of Representatives of Southern States. A special interest lies in the author’s approach to distinguish the
slaves status of being ‘people’ and ‘property’ at the same time. No. 84 was chosen
due to Hamilton’s interesting rhetorical treatment of and political stance on the bill of
rights. No. 85 was chosen because of its importance as a conclusion to the complete
work and arguments of the whole body of texts. [...]
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical Background
3. Analysis of selected Federalist Papers
3.1. Federalist No. 10
3.2. Federalist No. 54
3.3. Federalist No. 84
3.4. Federalist Nr. 85
4. Summary and Conclusion
5. Literature
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to analyze the rhetorical approach of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton within selected essays of The Federalist Papers. By examining four representative papers, the study seeks to determine whether their rhetorical styles and political arguments can be distinguished, even when written under the shared pseudonym "Publius."
- Analysis of the rhetorical strategies employed in Federalist No. 10, 54, 84, and 85.
- Evaluation of the influence of authorship on the treatment of controversial topics like slavery and the Bill of Rights.
- Comparison of Madison’s and Hamilton’s distinct writing styles and use of logical appeals (logos).
- Investigation into how the historical context and target audience influenced the rhetorical structure of the papers.
- Assessment of the role of political propaganda in securing the ratification of the United States Constitution.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. Federalist No. 10
At the beginning of Federalist No. 9 Hamilton has already warned the audience of the danger of domestic factions giving examples of how such influences have endangered the classic republics and states in Greece and Italy (44). Madison begins No. 10 by repeating Hamilton’s emphasis of the advantages the Union would have in controlling such influences and addresses the task of his essay to the examination of the nature of factions and to a solution of the problems they cause.
There is, of course, some rhetorical embellishment. From the start, Madison endows the Union directly with positive attributes like having “numerous advantages” and being “well-constructed” (50). He continues to describe the present state of affairs by a series of antitheses, opposing the “adversaries to liberty” (50), who use the current chaos (which in itself is opposed to a “well-constructed Union”) for their own goals, to the “most considerate and virtuous citizens” (51) who fear for the public and private good. Thus he makes it obvious that he wishes to address the latter and solve their problems and to, at the same time, oppose the former.
Having reviewed the situation, Madison points out the culprit and the cause of the problem – “the factious spirit [which] has tainted our public administrations” (51), enforcing his previous argument that the problematic situation in the states has “been erroneously charged on the operation of our government”(51, emphasis added.).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Provides an overview of The Federalist Papers, their historical purpose, and the criteria for selecting the four specific essays analyzed in this paper.
2. Historical Background: Discusses the political climate following the War of Independence and the subsequent challenges that led to the drafting of the new United States Constitution.
3. Analysis of selected Federalist Papers: Offers a deep rhetorical examination of specific papers, focusing on how arguments were structured to address the concerns of the contemporary audience.
3.1. Federalist No. 10: Examines Madison’s definition and analysis of political factions and his argument for the superiority of a republican government.
3.2. Federalist No. 54: Explores the rhetorical technique of prosopopoeia used to discuss the complex issue of slavery in relation to representation and taxation.
3.3. Federalist No. 84: Analyzes Hamilton’s arguments against the necessity of a Bill of Rights by comparing the proposed Constitution to existing state constitutions.
3.4. Federalist Nr. 85: Looks at the concluding rhetorical strategies used by Hamilton to advocate for the final ratification of the Constitution.
4. Summary and Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, noting that while Madison’s style is generally more subtle, both authors primarily relied on practical reasoning and logical persuasion.
5. Literature: Lists the academic sources and secondary literature used to support the analysis of the Federalist Papers.
Keywords
Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Publius, US Constitution, Rhetoric, Factions, Bill of Rights, Ratification, Political Science, Slavery, Republicanism, Logos, American History, Eighteenth Century
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the rhetorical analysis of four selected Federalist Papers to understand the persuasive techniques used by Madison and Hamilton during the ratification debate of the US Constitution.
Which Federalist Papers were chosen for the analysis?
The analysis covers Federalist No. 10, No. 54, No. 84, and No. 85.
What is the central research question?
The study asks whether the rhetorical styles and political ideas of Madison and Hamilton can be distinguished from one another, despite the essays being published under the collective name "Publius."
Which scientific method is applied?
The work employs a rhetorical analysis approach, examining the use of classical persuasive devices such as logos, ethos, and pathos within the historical context of the 18th century.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body systematically analyzes each selected essay, identifying the specific arguments used by the authors and evaluating their effectiveness in convincing the target audience in New York.
What are the key characteristics of the authors' styles mentioned?
The paper notes that Madison's approach is typically more subtle and neutral, whereas Hamilton's arguments are often more aggressive, forceful, and occasionally propagandistic.
How does the author treat the controversial subject of slavery in Federalist No. 54?
The author argues that the writer (Madison) introduces a fictional Southern voice through the technique of prosopopoeia to pragmatically reconcile the "three-fifths rule" with the broader goals of the Constitution.
Why did Hamilton oppose the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84?
Hamilton argued that a Bill of Rights was not only redundant because the Constitution already contained protective provisions, but potentially dangerous as it might suggest that rights not enumerated were not guaranteed.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Jelena Vukadinovic (Autor:in), 2008, The Rhetorical Approach in the Federalist Papers No.10, No.54, No.84 and No.85, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/126097
