(Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay) | Washington family copy of the first edition of The Federalist

(Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay)

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. New York: Printed and sold by J[ohn] and A[ndrew] M'Lean, 1788

2 vols, 12mo (165 x 97 mm; 160 x 90 mm). (1) Title-page with the ownership signature of David Stuart in ink, and an ownership inscription of a member of the 12th Massachusetts Infantry 1862 in pencil, Stuart’s marginalia throughout; trimmed, just slightly cropping marginalia, terminal blank cleanly detached, minor dampstaining and toning. Contemporary reverse calf, spine with red morocco lettering-piece; re-jointed in tan calf, hinges a bit weak, lacking the front free-endpaper, rear free-endpaper with long closed tear and cleanly detached. (2) Title-page; minor dampstaining and toning, stray spots. Contemporary calf, spine with red morocco lettering-piece and five false gilt bands; upper joint starting, rubbed with exposure to corners, lacking the rear free-endpaper. Housed in a half-morocco clamshell box.

A historically significant Washington family copy of the first edition of The Federalist: one of the most important American contributions to political theory and a "classic exposition of the principles of republican government" (Bernstein). The anonymous essays that make up The Federalist, though written as expedient political propaganda for the purpose of supporting New York's ratification of the Federal Constitution, are not only apologias for the Constitution—they were also about the very promise of democracy in the modern age. Among the most significant of all American books, the first edition of The Federalist comprises the first collected printing of the 85 seminal essays written in defense of the newly drafted Constitution.

The present copy, belonging to Dr. David Stuart, George Washington’s relative-by-marriage, ally, and confidante, bears his 1788 ownership signature and handwritten annotations. David Stuart came to know Washington when he became a virtual member of his family in 1783, upon marrying Eleanor Calvert Custis, the widow of Martha Washington's son, John Parke "Jacky" Custis. Stuart and Washington began their wide-ranging correspondence that same year, and the Virginia doctor quickly became a trusted friend and advisor to the soon-to-be president. A delegate to the Virginia General Assembly, Stuart corresponded with Washington about the Constitution at length during the debates over ratification.

The Federalist essays, not only used for promoting Federalism amidst the heated pamphlet wars, were also used as a tool for interpreting the Constitution long before it was ratified. Washington early saw the importance of The Federalist essays in gaining the ratification of the new republican charter, and scarcely a month after they had begun to appear in New York newspapers; he wrote to Stuart on 30 November 1787, concerned that nothing supporting ratification had yet appeared in the press. Washington wrote, "As an antidote to these opinions, and in order to investigate the ground of objections to the Constitution which is submitted to the People, the Federalist, under the signature of Publius, is written. The numbers which have been published, I send you. If there is a Printer in Richmond who is really well disposed to support the New Constitution he would do well to give them a place in his Paper. They are (I think I may venture to say) written by able men; and before they are finished, will, if I am mistaken not, place matters in a true point of light” (Fitzpatrick 29:324).

As Washington desired to maintain a low public profile with regard to the Constitution, he set up a clandestine network to distribute the Federalist essays; in the same letter as above, he writes “Altho' I am acquainted with some of the writers who are concerned in this work, I am not at liberty to disclose their names, nor would I have it known that they are sent by me to you for promulgation.” This secret channel of distribution placed Stuart at an essential juncture: James Madison would first pass the essays to Washington, who would then send them to Stuart, who, in turn, would give them to Augustine Davis (later the official printer to the Virginia Ratification Convention) for printing in the Virginia Independent Chronicle. The first seven numbers of the Federalist essays appeared in the Chronicle on 12, 19 and 26 December. On 22 December, Washington sent additional numbers under the signature Publius. Not only a confidante of the future president, Stuart was thus also an indispensable operator in the dissemination of Federalist views in a state with delegates sharply divided on the question of ratification.

The ratification of Virginia would prove to be a pivotal moment in the history of American democracy. In the state, the Federalist faction, which favored the adoption of the Constitution, was led, unsurprisingly, by James Madison. As a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, Madison largely set the agenda by introducing the “Virginia Plan” and who subsequently orchestrated many of the key compromises necessary in drafting the Constitution itself. The Anti-Federalist bloc of delegates was led by Patrick Henry, who feared federal encroachment on Virginia’s state liberties and government. Henry’s opposition to government under the Constitution rather than the Articles of Confederation remained so zealous that he declined appointments as Secretary of State and as a justice of the Supreme Court. Henry’s control of the Virginia legislature also allowed him to thwart Madison’s election to the United States Senate.

David Stuart ended his legislative career representing Virginia’s Fairfax County at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, beating out Anti-Federalist George Mason (though he attended as a representative of Stafford County). The factions at the Convention, which met six days a week from 2 to 27 June, for a total of twenty-three sessions, fiercely debated the Constitution; neither side seemed to have a clear path to victory, with many delegates believing that the Convention was exactly divided on the question of ratification. They ultimately ratified on 25 June, and indeed Virginia was the state ratification that ensured the success of the United States Constitution. Although New Hampshire provided the necessary ninth state ratification of the Constitution on 21 June, just before the conclusion of the Virginia Convention, it is impossible to imagine that the compact would have held without the assent of Virginia. Not only was Virginia the most populous and wealthiest of the original thirteen states, New York, which ratified a month after Virginia did on 26 July, likely would have rejected the charter had Virginia done so.

The present copy of The Federalist, then, is remarkable artifact from the very birth of the United States’ Constitution. Stuart was not only responsible for the dissemination of these essays in this most crucial state, an advisor to Washington, and a key figure in the state ratification, he was also an essential bridge to the eventual publication of this cumulative work—inarguably the most important political commentary on the Constitution.

The principal force behind the entry of “Publius” (the pen name for all three authors) into the ratification pamphlet was Alexander Hamilton, but he also enlisted fellow New Yorker John Jay and Virginian James Madison as coauthors. The first essay by Publius appeared in the 27 October 1787 issue of The Independent Journal, and all or some of the subsequent numbers were also printed in The New-York Packet, The Daily Advertiser, and The New-York Journal. The first thirty-six Federalist essays were collected and published by the M’Lean brothers in March 1788, and the final forty-nine—together with the text of the Constitution—followed in volume 2 in May; in fact, the last eight essays were printed in book form before they appeared in newspapers. This first collected edition was published in early 1788: Volume I, published in March, contains the first 36 numbers; Volume II, published in May, includes the remaining 49, together with the text of the Constitution. Upon its publication, George Washington noted to Alexander Hamilton that the work "will merit the Notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly and ably discussed the principles of freedom and the topics of government, which will always be interesting to mankind" (George Washington, letter to Hamilton, 28 August 1788).

The genesis of this "classic exposition of the principles of republican government" is to be found in the "great national discussion" which took place about the ratification of the Constitution, and the necessity of answering the salvos in print from the Anti-Federalists and other opponents of a strong Federal government (Bernstein, Are We to be a Nation? 242). The original plan was that James Madison and John Jay were to help Hamilton write a series of essays explaining the merits of their system, whilst also rebutting the arguments of its detractors. "Hamilton wrote the first piece in October 1787 on a sloop returning from Albany...He finished many pieces while the printer waited in a hall for the completed copy" (Brookhiser Alexander Hamilton: American 68-69). In the end, well over half of the 85 essays were written by Hamilton alone. Despite the intense time pressures under which the series was written "what began as a propaganda tract, aimed only at winning the election for delegates to New York's state ratifying convention, evolved into the classic commentary upon the American Federal system" (McDonald, Alexander Hamilton: A Biography 107).

By any measure, a remarkable association copy. Stuart’s annotations reveal both his familiarity with, and his close reading of, this indispensable commentary. He notes the authorship of Number 3 (“Mr. Jay”), Number 10 (“Mr. Maddison”), Number 18 (“Hamilton & Maddison”), Number 20 (“H & Maddison”), and Number 28 (“Maddison”), and leaves notes for his reading, as in Number 18, where he has written “Observations on the confederacies of the Greeks.” But he also demonstrates his insight through his critical commentary throughout. In Number 10, though the trimming of the text-block has cost some of his marginalia, he appears to comment on page 54 that the “[B]ritish to have [envised?] [s]uch a [fac]tion” beside Madison’s definition of a “faction” as “a number of citizens … who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permeant and aggregate interests of the community.” In Number 11, on page 64, he comments “by the [h]as a [N]avy been [?]ppos[?]? […]g Mad,” next to the Hamilton’s assertion of the necessity of a Navy, in “influencing the conduct of European nations”; Stuart’s annotation appears to reference similar comments made by Madison in Number 41. On the following page, he has annotated Hamilton’s claim, “The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral,” boldly underlining the second sentence.

Stuart was known for his frank judgments, even toward his Federalist compatriots (going as far as to criticize Washington’s mannerisms directly to him, after becoming President). Here, in his annotations, one can see this same spirit in his annotation to Number 12. Where Hamilton argues for the self-evidence of the interwovenness of commerce and land value, writing “how apt a spirit of ill-informed jealousy, or of too great abstraction and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest truths of reason and conviction,” Stuart has boldly underlined “ill-informed jealousy” and in the margin scrawled, “the author is himself a melancholy proof of this.” His judgment of Hamilton’s character did not, however, impede his appreciation of his political thinking, as seen in his notes at the conclusion of Number 22; when Hamilton laments that the Confederation Congress had given rise “to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative appeal,” Stuart notes that this echoes “Jeffersons ideas in his notes repeal in the State Constitution of Va,” and anticipates the very battles around ratification outlined above.

Even beyond his already pivotal place in the foundations of American democracy, Stuart continued to be historically significant. After the Constitution was ratified, he was appointed by Washington as one of three commissioners responsible for the planning of the new federal city, Washington D.C. Working alongside Thomas Johnson and Daniel Carroll to survey land purchases and oversee the construction of public buildings, Stuart was Washington’s direct line for keeping tabs on the development of the Federal City. Further, his knowledge of French proved indispensable, as the commissioners were to approve of chief engineer Pierre L’Enfent’s work, and he would report the (many) issues back to Washington.

Important association copies of The Federalist are rare, let alone ones so closely connected to Washington. This copy is made even more remarkable through its fundamental relationship to the ratification of the Constitution itself.

REFERENCES:

Bernstein, Are We To Be a Nation?, pp. 239–242; Church 1230; ESTC W5416; Evans 21127; Federal Hundred 19; Ford, Bibliotheca Hamiltoniana 17; Grolier, American 19; Printing and the Mind of Man 234; Sabin 23979; Streeter 2:1049

PROVENANCE:

Vol. 1: David Stuart, 1753-1814, (ownership signature on title, dated 10 June 1789) — a member of the 12th Massachusetts Infantry, 1862 (pencil inscription on title). Vol 2: "Storm[?] 1796" (ownership inscription on front free-endpaper) — R. Reynolds (ownership inscription on initial blank, dated Baltimore, Maryland, 17 March 1873) — Carl Spices (ownership inscription on front free-endpaper dated 25 November 1957)