At Law & Liberty, Aaron Coleman (University of the Cumberlands — History) reviews From Reflection and Choice: The Political Philosophy of the Federalist Papers and the Ratification Debates (Will R. Jordan, ed., Mercer University Press 2020). From the introduction:
A cottage industry exists around analyzing The Federalist. The scholarly literature is so extensive that finding something fresh to say about the work could prove a Herculean task. The essays in Will R. Jordan’s edited collection, From Reflection and Choice: The Political Philosophy of the Federalist Papers and the Ratification Debates, reveal, however, that scholars continue to raise important questions that need answering.
From Reflection and Choice contains nine essays, all by political theorists. Divided into two sections, “The Founders’ Project” and “Legacy and Applications,” the range of authors and topics is impressive. Too large and impressive, in fact, to detail in a review, so this essay will provide only summaries before offering thoughts about the volume as a whole.
Here is the book description from Amazon:
The essays in this collection were first presented at the 2018 A.V. Elliott Conference on Great Books and Ideas, the eleventh annual conference sponsored by Mercer University's Thomas C. and Ramona E. McDonald Center for America's Founding Principles. The current era of intense partisan conflict is unlikely to be remembered for the excellence of its public discourse. Given this fact, we do well to remind ourselves that Americans were once capable of debating even the most important political questions in the popular press, and doing so at an extraordinarily high level. The debate over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788 enlisted some of the country's greatest minds, and wrestled with issues fundamental to popular government in general and to the United States constitutional order in particular. This volume returns to the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, seeking to better understand the principles at stake, and asking, with Publius, "whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." The book is divided into two major sections. The first considers the ratification debate itself, to examine first principles, and to get a clearer sense of the founders' project. The second turns to the ways in which the terms of the ratification debate echo down through American history and how they might be applied to inform contemporary political practice.
Contributors include Jeremy D. Bailey, Roger Barrus, Elizabeth Kaufer Busch, Murray Dry, Kimberly Hurd Hale, Jon D. Schaff, Lynn Uzzell, Karl Walling, and Michael Zuckert.
And more from Professor Coleman's review:
From Reflection and Choice is a solid and thought-provoking collection of essays. Yet several issues mar the collection. First, too many essays are frustratingly condensed, leaving the authors’ thoughts half-expressed—almost as if the publisher refused to go beyond a specific page limit. Bailey’s essay exemplifies this problem. Madison’s argument that courts should be neutral umpires is convincing but stops almost as soon a Bailey makes it. This abrupt ending leaves his essay open to criticisms that it might have headed off with more space. If, for example, Madison believed the federal courts had the final say in questions of federalism, why did Madison not include this belief in the Virginia Resolutions, his most famous defense of state sovereignty against federal encroachment? Was it due to his not wanting to upset Jefferson and his blunt assessment of the federal judiciary? Was the direct threat to liberty posed by the Alien and Sedition Acts too substantial to leave only to the Courts? If interposition is a “duty,” as Madison claims, at what point do states relinquish this duty to the court? No doubt Bailey can offer answers to these questions, but since the essay breaks off just as he starts making his actual argument, it limits an otherwise fine contribution.
My second, and more general criticism, focuses on methodology. Too much of the first section is Madison-centric. Other than one essay about Hamilton, the book’s first section ignores the other Federalist authors. Jay’s only serious appearance comes in Walling’s piece. This focus on Madison transforms the book’s first section into the great Virginian’s political philosophy more than The Federalist’s. Having an essay about Hamilton’s misjudgment about the federal judiciary or Bill of Rights, for example, would have added an excellent follow-up topic to Bailey’s article, while Jay’s discussion of the nature of the union versus that of the Anti-Federalists are natural topics that the book ignores at the expense of Madison.
Posted at 6:01 AM