There are a ton of Federalist papers, and a lot of secondary text on them. Here is the 1st paragraph to a 12 page paper I wrote on them last year comparing approaches to the papers. That's all you get. 😛
When surveying the literature on The Federalist, there is a huge amount of information to assimilate, and certain trends and ideas about the text become evident. First off, there is a dichotomy between the work of historians and political scientists. The former often explain the papers, especially in a new way, and in their context. One telling example of this is Daniel Howe?s decision to look at The Federalist using "Sitz im leben," what biblical scholars use to analyze the Bible. Howe?s rationale for this is simple, the papers are a ?secular scripture? in the United States of America. The political scientists attack the papers in a different way. They try to show how The Federalist can teach us to better run our government. The papers then become the property of the sub-field of political theory and philosophy, and the analysis becomes quite arcane. Occasionally the political scientists stray into the methods of History, but rarely do they display the same acumen as historians do.
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
