lieve that the American founders soughtna physics that would make democracyndesirable, even for a vicious people.nOur founders were idealists; they werennot dreamers. The Federalist No. 55,namong other papers, noted that republicanngovernment, more than any othernform, presupposed the domination ofnthe decent instincts of the people.nWills avoids the superficial mistakesnthat have flawed most discussions ofnThe Federalist. He recognizes that thenthree authors who held Publius’s pennwere engaged in a cooperative effort andnthat they made a consistent argument.nHe is not captivated by the positivistnrebellion against metaphysics and canntherefore refute Robert Dahl’s effort tonreduce the argument to a series of syllogisms.nAlthough he does not reachnout to the whole book, he understandsnthat serious interpretation of it requiresnreading more of it than merely thenTenth Number. He is aware that thenbook is more than Locke adapted to annAmerican setting.nNevertheless, the context in whichnWills places The Federalist is his ownnrather than the authors’. Wills offersnthis volume as the second essay of a projectedntetralogy interpreting our nation.nHis first volume, Inventing America,nwas an analysis of “Jefferson’s Declarationnof Independence,” a documentnthat must be differentiated from thenone adopted by the Second ContinentalnCongress as the core of our nationalnheritage. Following this volume. Willsnintends to offer his readers an essayninterpreting the Constitution. Hisnconcluding volume, tentatively entitlednJudging America, will deal with thenSupreme Court. Glancing at this sequence,nbeginning with a democraticnrepublic and ending with panels of appointeesnas judges of the republic, hintsnat a sequence differing from our traditionalnunderstanding of these relationships.nWills understands the Americanntradition differently than our greatestnstatesmen have understood it, and henaims to replace the self-understandingnthat they have cultivated with his ownnperception.nAlthough Wills implicitly concedesnthe democratic roots of the Constitutionndiscussed in The Federalist, hennever directly confronts the questionnof the democratic character of the Constitutionndefended in the book. Althoughnthe authors of The Federalistnsought to maintain their ties to thenAmerican Revolution and its principles,nWills has little to say about the relationshipnof their book to those principles,nwhether from their perspective ornfrom the perspective of the Declarationnof Independence that he offered a fewnshort years ago. Wills’s Federalist doesnhave a context, but it is not the onenestablished by Publius. His essay is onenmore example of the manner in whichnthe political philosophy that animatednthe founding of this nation has beennunmanned by the heirs of that founding.nWills is somewhat weak in discussingnother topics that The Federalist treatednin an important fashion. He ignoresnPublius’s treatment of the concept ofnfederalism in No. 39. One finds no discussionnby Wills of the potential size,nand the bias toward expansion, builtninto the federal system by its founders,nalthough he does concede that the booknis a defense of strong government. Henignores the character of the representativesndiscussed in No.’s 35 and 36, andnslights foreign-policy considerations. Henmentions Willmoore Kendall in passing,nbut his treatment of Kendall’s readingnof The Federalist is a caricature. MartinnDiamond is the most serious analyst tonpublish professional articles discussingnthe book in the past generation; Willsnignores him almost completely. Willsnnever addresses the critiques of Diamondnthat have surfaced among conservativenscholars. He bases his worknon the scholarship of Douglass Adair,nyet Adair’s major contribution to scholarshipnon The Federalist (allegedly identifyingnwho wrote which of the papers)nis irrelevant to the points that Willsnwants at the center of his novel interpretationnof The Federalist. Diamond,namong others, had recognized this be-nnnContinuitynA Journal of HistorynEditors-in-Chief:nPaul Gottfried (Rockford College)nAileen S. Kraditor (Boston University)nThe object of Continuity is to provide anforum for historical scholarship consistentnwith belief in: the quest for truth for its ownnsake; the superiority of our free society,nwith all its faults, to any practicable alternative;nlegitimate authority; and the presumptivenvalue of tradition as the accumulatednwisdom of the past.nWe shall scrutinize the historiographicalnidols of our age, the hegemony of whichnhas contributed to the current erosion ofnscholarly discourse within the academynand to the fashionable vilification of ourncountry among intellectuals throughoutnour society.nWe shall also publish articles and reviewnessays that propose original interpretationsnof historical problems. Continuity’s contentsnwill be contentious while exemplifyingnthe highest standards of scholarship.nIN OUR SECOND ISSUE:n”Historical Continuity”nSpecial Editor, Ellen McDonaldnContinuity in Celtic Warfarenby Grady McWhineynCultural Conservatism and the IndustrialnRevolution: The Case of Baltimore, 1776-n1860nby Gary L. BrownenThe New Zealand Welfare State: Originsnand Reflectionsnby Peter J. ColemannThe Rumanian National Deviationnby R. V. BurksnDetente: The Most Serious Obstacles arenCulturalnby Hugh RagsdalenSubscriptions are $10.00 a year and will begin with thenmost recently published odd-numbered issue unlessnotherwise requested. Subscription orders should be sentnto: Continuity, 14 S. Bryn Mawr Avenue. Bryn Mawr.nPA 19019.n•i^HI^Mi^lnJuly/August 1981n