Possibly because I’m not from the US, but the first thing I think of when hearing of the Federalist Papers is Mosteller’s work on deciding the disputed authorship using Bayesian techniques rather than the constitutional significance.
Indeed, the “federalist papers” are well-known to Americans as the documents being discussed in this article. Most Americans will have studied them in history class in school, or at least heard of them.
I went to high school in New England, where we at least covered the basics like the Boston Tea Party, Revolutionary War, Constitution Convention, etc. However I only read the Federalist Papers after buying a copy as an adult.
Even more so after the Hamilton musical.
I'm sure you can go deeper on that stuff but , like... we memorized every president and vice president, and what they ran on and what issues they faced, etc; it was _pretty_ comprehensive. To be fair my school taught AP US quite well, I think they had an 100% pass rate. But a high-schooler with no knowledge of the world, economics, labor, culture, science... and especially European history which moves in lockstep with American... can only understand so much. It would take a much more comprehensive (and, arguably, ideological) course to convey the history of the nation in much greater depth than that class did.
Reading about it now and realizing just how much people know that isn’t accurate or is misleading is shocking.
-
> less that 10% in the US that could tell you what the Federalist Papers are
Both make sense to me. I wonder if I remember even 10% of what I was taught in school…
they have 0 understanding of any of the theory. and the resulting society we live in is people that don't understand how the rules work. If you don't understand how the rules work then you'll believe anybody who tells you that the game is rigged.
then you end up with idiots arguing with idiots while they all lie about reality.
State standards vary, but IIRC in California it's the central focus of a full semester of civics in each 8th and 12th grades and an important subject within a full year program of American History in 5th and 11th grades; if one participates in ubdergraduate work (as most Americans do), you are likely to have more of it in your gen ed requirements, as well, though the particulars vary even more than state standards for K-12.
This is also kind of silly. You can be taught something as a kid, you can show them the legal rules, but if the adults around you don't act with respect for the system, why would you bother believing it?
When the game is rigged, the conclusion that it is rigged is correct. Regardless of what was the reasoning hundreds years ago. If you don't understand how the rules work then you'll believe that the game is fair when it is not.
Also, if understanding the rules requires more then a semester, then maybe the rules are overly convoluted. It is not like other countries would had everyone spending years on equivalent stuff.
The purpose of the papers was to sell the Constitution to the people of the States to get their States to ratify it. Getting someone to read them will give them a fuller appreciation for a lot of the “why” behind the Constitution, but I would be happier if we could get more people to understand what it is.
And frankly as a legal document the constitution is a pretty poor one. It's incredibly vague, it doesn't define any of the terms it uses and is incredibly hard to amend. It certainly has served us well in the past but many of our current political strife stems from its deficiencies.
Well we haven’t amended it in a while, and the most recent one was approved by Congress at the same time as the Bill of Rights (was one of the articles of the Bill of Rights) and ratified by enough States in the 20th century mostly because a guy got a C on a term paper and was understandably pissed because his paper was correct. That’s because at the end of the day when all is said and done, we as a Union have not been convinced that we should amend it again yet, and replacing it would have similar hurdles.
EDIT: Also feel like I should point out the Constitution is clearer than people think it is. Largely disagreements in how to read this or that come down to wanting to read it one way, but not being able to without making in effect a philosophical argument rather than just reading the text. This is not uncommon in the law profession, which is why we have Courts, and Courts can overturn their own precedent and Congress/legislatures can tell them they're wrong by passing a new law.
My favorite example is the 16th amendment:
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
This was passed to "clarify" that Congress had this power already, according to Congress; and according to the Supreme Court at the time, they did not. I think the Fuller Court was just wrong on this one because here's what Article I Section 8 (titled "Powers of Congress" but all of Article I covers the legislative power) actually says as it pertains to raising government revenues:
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Note how before the semicolon, they clearly distinguish between Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, but after the semi-colon they list exactly Duties, Imposts, and Excises which shall be uniform throughout the United States. We didn't need the 16th amendment for Congress to collect income tax, but a court thought they did, so they passed an amendment. Congress can do that kind of thing when they want to because they are the most powerful branch of government.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
It explicitly bans direct taxes except for a fixed tax per person. A income tax which directly taxes individuals almost certainly constitutes a direct tax by any reasonable interpretation.
The 16th amendment directly repudiates that section and grants the explicit power to levy a income tax.
Doing some heavy lifting with most there. The Federalist Papers were really only ever mentioned, and nothing close to being studied. That's very similar to saying most christians have studied of the book of Enoch. Some might have heard of the non canonized books, but studied them?
I recognize that still, only barely "most" Americans even go to college, so probably only like a third ever really read any of it.
My AP history course was just basic American history with added reading and writing and a big project due near the end, taught using a college textbook. They weren't covered in much more detail, and definitely were not a big chunk of reading materials. Our extra reading included things like Malcolm X, The Grapes of Wrath, and... I can't remember the third. I think I that AP test was my best-scoring, but it has been 20 years so I might be wrong on that.