3 ms·

You're looking for the Federalist Papers [0]. The first Federalist Papers were written as a response to the first Anti-Federalist Papers, and the two groups car

You're looking for the Federalist Papers [0]. The first Federalist Papers were written as a response to the first Anti-Federalist Papers, and the two groups carried on the debate for months by continuing to write more counter-essays. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

verdverm 6y ago
Both are important to understanding the constitution say the scholars. Federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwPOrH3XAK5swr7 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwP... Anti-federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5ihEjWnpFhXsp https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5... Federalist 1 - Introduction is so interesting to listen to in today's climate, good words for all to ponder on.
soheil 6y ago
I always assumed Federalist Papers were primarily written as a way to argue for US Constitution not solely as a response to objections against it.
- SllX 6y ago
  You don’t have to argue for something if no one is objecting. There was fear that the Constitutional Convention, originally called to amend the Articles of Confederation, maybe, and deal with some of the practical problems facing the Union, had gone too far in proposing an entirely new Constitution.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Most of the papers themselves are structured as a series of "hypothetical" objections, each followed by a retort. The reason why I put that in quotes is that many of them weren't hypothetical to the intended audience. Sometimes it gets really funny, like in #54 (about the 3/5 Compromise), where the author clearly doesn't like the idea on its own all that much, and would prefer to not be seen as an ardent supporter of it - and thus, the retort itself is also written from a third person perspective: "... might one of our Southern brethren observe ... " etc.

verdverm 6y ago

Both are important to understanding the constitution say the scholars. Federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwPOrH3XAK5swr7 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwP... Anti-federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5ihEjWnpFhXsp https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5... Federalist 1 - Introduction is so interesting to listen to in today's climate, good words for all to ponder on.

soheil 6y ago

I always assumed Federalist Papers were primarily written as a way to argue for US Constitution not solely as a response to objections against it.

SllX 6y ago
You don’t have to argue for something if no one is objecting. There was fear that the Constitutional Convention, originally called to amend the Articles of Confederation, maybe, and deal with some of the practical problems facing the Union, had gone too far in proposing an entirely new Constitution.
int_19h 6y ago
Most of the papers themselves are structured as a series of "hypothetical" objections, each followed by a retort. The reason why I put that in quotes is that many of them weren't hypothetical to the intended audience. Sometimes it gets really funny, like in #54 (about the 3/5 Compromise), where the author clearly doesn't like the idea on its own all that much, and would prefer to not be seen as an ardent supporter of it - and thus, the retort itself is also written from a third person perspective: "... might one of our Southern brethren observe ... " etc.