The Federalist Papers served as crucial persuasive documents during the Constitution's ratification debates, particularly for securing New York's pivotal approval, without which many feared the entire system would collapse. Dr. Beienberg explains how these essays engaged with sophisticated criticisms from writers like Brutus in respectful intellectual debate rather than dismissive rhetoric.

• Each state needed to ratify the Constitution for it to take effect independently
• Rhode Island and North Carolina briefly existed as independent countries while holding out
• New York's ratification was considered essential despite its being identified as a "small state"
• Brutus, a legally trained critic, eloquently voiced concerns shared by many Americans
• The Federalist Papers specifically addressed New York audiences, often referencing their state constitution
• Taking skeptics seriously proved more effective than Pennsylvania's dismissive approach
• Both Federalists and Constitution skeptics shared common ground on fundamental American values
• Brutus and Hamilton both acknowledged judicial review existed in the Constitution, disagreeing only on its merits

Join us on December 1st for our episode on Marbury v. Madison, in which we'll explore judicial review in greater depth.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics