|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 EXTENT TO WHICH THE FEDERALIST PAPERS CAN BE VIEWED AS A SEMINAL AMERICAN PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN By SARA HALL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREM ENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Sara Hall
3 To my sisters
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my parents and grandparents for their support in all areas of my life. I am especially grateful for my sisters for b rightening the tougher days of graduate school.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 7 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 15 Summary of the Federalist in Textbooks .................................................................................. 15 Definitions and Applications ...................................................................................................... 17 Research ............................................................................................................................... 23 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 24 Programming ........................................................................................................................ 25 Persuasion ..................................................................................................................... 26 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 30 Stewardship .......................................................................................................................... 30 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 31 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 33 Ethnographic Survey of the Environment ................................................................................. 34 Selection of Documents .............................................................................................................. 35 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 40 Research ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 52 Progra mming ............................................................................................................................... 53 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 55 Stewardship ................................................................................................................................. 56 5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 74 The Federalist Papers ................................................................................................................. 74 Circulation ............................................................................................................................ 75 Publication Details ............................................................................................................... 76 Personal Correspondence ............................................................................................................ 78 Discussion of Results .................................................................................................................. 80 Implications and Limita tions ...................................................................................................... 85
6 APPENDIX A CODE DIAGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 90 B CODE BOOK FOR THE FEDERALIST PAPERS ................................................................. 92 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 104
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Federalist Papers publication in Pennsylvania with Pennsylvanias ratification date .... 60 4 2 Federalist Papers publication in Massachusetts with Massachusettss ratification date .......................................................................................................................................... 62 4 3 Federalist Papers publication in New Hampshire with New Hampshires ratification date ....................................................................................................................... 63 4 4 Federalist Papers publication in V irginia with Virginias ratification date ..................... 64 4 5 Federalist Papers publication in New York with New Yorks ratification date .............. 65 4 6 Federalist Papers publication in Rhode Island with Rhode Islands ratification date ..... 72 4 7 New York City newspaper -numbering system compared to MLean editions numbering system .................................................................................................................. 73 5 1 Personal Correspondence ....................................................................................................... 87
8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ irements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication EXTENT TO WHICH THE FEDERALIST PAPERS CAN BE VIEWED AS A SEMINAL AMERICAN PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN By Sara Hall May 2009 Chair: Spiro Kiousis Major: Mass Communication The Federalist Papers is a collection of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Collectively the Papers provide a comprehensive look into the political philosophy of the founders. Many public relations academes have asserted that the Federalist Papers w as the first public relations campaign in America. Until now, these statements have not been evaluated. A purpose was to ascertain to what extent the Federalist Papers were the first example of public relations in America. This goal was achieved using qual itative content analysis of Papers themselves in addition to personal correspondence between the three authors of the essays.
9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Obtaining national acceptance of the Constitution was essentially a public relations exercise, and Hamil ton, with his keen instinct for public relations, took thought not only to the product but to the ready acquiescence of thoughtful people; and h e imparted his views to others Once the Constitution came before the country, the rapidity with which Hamilton m oved was a striking exemplification of good public relations. (Nevins, 1997, pp.9 10). Myriad public relations texts that claim to offer a history of public relations in America cite the Federalist Papers as one of the earliest American public relations ca mpaigns. There seems to be little agreement between these books on the role that the Federalist Papers played in the development of public relations in America. Among the textbooks that mention the Federalist Papers as being of any significance in the fie ld is Pimlotts (1951) Public relations and American democracy Pimlott (1951) mentions that one of the authors of the Papers Alexander Hamilton, was a figure in public relations historical development but does not explain why Hamiltons name is worth me ntioning in the book. A perhaps more notable author, Bernays (1952), focuses on the American Revolution as the more prominent public relations achievement but does not manage to do so without indirectly mentioning the results of the Federalist Papers: th e passage of the Bill of Rights and the ratification of the Constitution: This movement culminated in the revolutionary war. And when the United States was set up as an independent country, the Constitution (1789) and the Bill of Rights (1791) proclaimed freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly as fundamental rights to which all Americans were entitled (Bernays, 1952, p. 27). Interestingly, Cutlip and Centers (1952) Effective public relations: Pathways to public favor, traces the history of public relations from the time of Machiavelli up to present day but does not even allude to the Federalist Papers Later editions of the same book, however, do expound on the importance of the Federalist Papers in public relations history. In Cutlip and Center s (1971) fourth edition of Effective public relations the authors provide a breadth of
10 quotes to support the foundational role the Papers played in public relations history. Quoting another author, Cutlip and Center (1971) state, David Truman says, the entire effort of which The Federalist was a part was one of the most skillfully and important examples of pressure group activity in American history (Cutlip & Center, 1971, p. 53). Interestingly, Cutlips (1994) own public relations history text, The u nseen power: public relations, a history, does not mention the Federalist Papers at all while Cutlips (1995) Public Relations History directly states that the Federalist Papers were propaganda Cutlip, Center and Brooms (2006) later edition of Effective Public Relations develops the ideas touched upon in previous editions with more certainty but with the same amount of evidentiary support. Cutlip, et al. (2006) state that the authors of the Federalist did the best job of public relations known to history (p. 90). Nolte and Wilcox (1979) support this assertion with the conclusions that they draw. They assert that the Constitution was drawn with considerable attention paid to public opinion and that the document was designed to appease the public. They conclude this argument by saying that these papers collectively were one of the greatest examples of the art of public relations (Nolte & Wilcox, 1979, p. 36). Nolte and Wilcox (1979) also go on to address the role of public relations in the adoption of the Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments to the constitution were drafted in response to public fears fears of an all powerful centralized government that would take the place of King and ParliamentAll reflect the public opinion of the times. The y were added to the constitution in order to create favorable public opinion about the national government established by the constitution (Nolte & Wilcox, 1979, p. 36). Wilcox, Ault and Agees (1989) text, Public relations: Strategies and tactics, discus ses the Papers briefly and states that the Papers influenced public opinion in both America and Britain. The authors did not conclude that the series of 85 papers were a component of a public
11 relations campaign but that they were instead more similar to t he same brand of propaganda as the Boston Tea Party (Wilcox, et al., 1989). Newsom, Scott and Turk (1989) discuss the Papers in their chapter titled, PR and the growth of the United States: the early years They state that the Federalist Papers played a critical role in getting the new Constitution ratified by the 13 states: The men who drafted the Constitution had to wage an intense PR campaign to sell the document to their colleagues and to the American people. Their propaganda took the form of eighty-five letters written to the newspapers. These letters by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay became known as the Federalist Papers, and did much to form the political opinions of the young nation (Newsom, et al., 1989, p.36). Seitel (1992) su pports this quote by also emphasizing the role the Papers played in the ratification of the Constitution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Nelsons (1996) A chronology and glossary of propaganda in the United States provides a detailed timeline fro m 1783, when the Articles of Confederation were in use, to 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified by Congress. This timeline describes the drafting if the new Constitution and places emphasis on the adoption of Hamilton, Madison and Jays pen name Pu blius (hereafter, Hamilton, Madison and Jay will be referred to collectively as Publius) as well as the goal of the Papers being the need to sell Americans the new Constitution (Nelson, 1996, p.4). Nelson (1996) also illuminates that Publius drew on se minal works of philosophy, the experience of past statesmen, and a profound grasp of existing circumstances (Nelson, 1996, p.4) in the penning of the Papers These attributions are continued in many other public relations textbooks in similar form. Some o lder texts dont mention the Federalist Papers at all in their review of public relations history while a large number of more current (1990 onward) textbooks do. When the Papers are mentioned, there is disagreement among authors as to whether the Papers comprise a public relations tactic as in most cases where the Papers are discussed in conjunction with the events
12 that lead up to the American Revolution, such as the Boston Tea Party or if the Papers are a cohesive public relations campaign. Regardle ss of these differences, there has been little qualitative research done in this area to support any of these claims. Indeed, to date there has been little primary research done on the history and development of early American public relations efforts w ith respect to a few dispersed paragraphs on the American Revolution and Sam Adams. Without regard to this lack of in -depth analysis, public relations textbooks continue to refer to the American founding as the period in which American public relations was conceived. When the birth of American public relations is discussed in textbooks, there is little to no distinction between events such as the Boston Tea Party and the Federalist Papers Feltons (1997) introduction for At the beginning: how public relations techniques gained approval of the U.S. Constitution, opened the West and led the nation thorough the civil war and world wars I and II states that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison used the art of persuasion to accomplish the best job of public r elations in history (Felton, 1997, About these papers). This and other continued attributions without research seem to indicate that apparently none of the texts in the field seem concerned with the lack of primary analysis of the Papers in a public rel ations context. While many public relations textbooks continue to claim that the Federalist Papers are the first public relations campaign in the nations history, articles in the field discuss the lack of attention paid to the campaign. Nevins (1962) a ddresses the lack of research in this area. At the same time, Nevins (1962) discusses many of the motives of the Federalists writers and aspects of the Papers that begin to qualify the continued attribution of the Papers as pieces of a public relations c ampaign. Nevins (1962) also connects the writing of the Papers and the distribution timeline to persuasive theories and models.
13 As made clear in practitioner literature, there is a need for greater research in this area (Bates, 2006; Nevins, 1962). Th is study will analyze the content of the Federalist Papers and perform a qualitative content analysis of these documents in addition to personal letters among the three members of Publius, in order to see if there is a connection between these mens effort s and modern public relations process models. The focus will be directed on the extent to which the Federalist Papers can be seen as a seminal public relations campaign in the United States. This will be established through the lens of modern public relat ions process models and persuasion literature. In order to discover the individual beliefs of Hamilton, Madison and Jay, an analysis of the many personal letters and papers between these parties and other figureheads of public opinion from the time will be necessary. This part of the research will allow for comparison between individually held beliefs of the three men and the ideas crusaded for in the Papers Any change between individually held beliefs and the ideas set forth in the Federalist Papers mig ht indicate persuasive attempts by the authors to appeal to their various publics. Secondly, the Federalist Papers publication and details thereof will need to be examined, as well as the final product of the Federalist Papers publication and circulatio n. This step will be completed by a review of the historical facts from that time. Upon completion of this step an assessment will be made to determine whether or not a clear effort can be seen by the authors (Publius) to analyze the state of public opi nion through research, to set clear achievable goals based on the collection of differing public opinions, which would be an indication of delineated objectives, and to outline a timeline for action and events based on the publics agenda and events beyond Publius control otherwise known as programming. Publius attempts to create a benchmarked evaluation of their efforts and a decision making process to determine whether further efforts were needed or not (evaluation) as
14 well as their use of feedback mec hanisms and their integration of additional elements into the ratified Constitution based on the publics expectations (stewardship) will also be assessed. In performing a primary qualitative content analysis of the Federalist Papers under the scrutiny of public relations models and modern persuasion theory, a greater understanding of the history and development of public relations as a field in America will be gained. An insight into the reasons for the acceptance of the Federalist Papers as an early public relations campaign will hopefully be revealed by the findings of this research. The establishment of an early example of a deliberate public relations campaign is essential to current research for one final reason. Botan and Hazleton (2006) clearly a ssert that the United States is the birthplace of public relations theory (Botan and Hazeton, 2006, p. 13). Some scholars, such as Dunn (1986), dispute this assertion and state that public relations campaigns developed in a far earlier time than the 17 00s and in other places such as ancient Rome and Renaissance Venice. Despite these minor contradictory assertions, Botan and Hazleton (2006) have much more reliable evidence to support their claim. Many of the same authors who dispute the Botan and Hazlet ons (2006) assertion agree that these early public relations efforts were little more than a spattering of tactics, not comprehensive campaigns (Dunn, 1986; Cutlip, 1952; Cutlip & Center, 1971; Bates, 2006). Even Dunn (1986) concedes that some of these ea rly public relations efforts whether they were part of a planned campaign or not were overshadowed by the public relations campaigns in early the early United States. If this study does establish intentional methods behind the publication of the Federa list Papers a practical application on which theory in the field would eventually be built will be solidified.
15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Summary of the Federalist in T extbooks The assertion that the Federalist Papers were a seminal public relations ca mpaign in America is made by many public relations texts without solid backing to support these statements. Many of the contemporary authors that have attempted to draw specific distinctions in the public relations history literature limit themselves by re stricting their analysis within various theoretical frameworks (Hoy, Raaz & Wehmeier, 2007). Hoy, Raaz and Wehmeier (2007) discuss some of these approaches to developing and categorizing public relations history. The first approach to historiography discu ssed by Hoy et al. (2007) is the fact and event oriented approach. This approach uses descriptive narrative to detail public relations history from the emergence of public relations elements to formalized practice (Hoy et al., 2007). This approach does no t relate historical events to public relations theory and is little more than collections of biographies or storytelling. The second approach that Hoy et al. (2007) discusses is the periodizing approach. The periodizing approach to public relations historiography categorizes different stages of public relations history not specific periods or stages of development. In addition to categorizing events in public relations history, this approach provides explanations to illustrate why these events were impor tant to public relations history and relates the events to theoretical notions (Hoy et al., 2007). The final approach to public relations historiography is the theory -oriented approach. This approach uses theory to guide research and provides description s of historic public relations events. The theoryoriented approach also provides thorough explanations of the described historical events (Hoy, et al., 2007). The theorybased approach is most easily seen in Grunig and Hunts (1984) four models of publi c relations (press agentry/publicity, public information model, two way asymmetric model and the two way
16 symmetric model). Although the various approaches are useful in their own right, in some cases, they may restrict proper examination of public relation s development in that researchers may overlook important events in public relations history because they do not fit into the authors predetermined historiography approach (Hoy, et al., 2007). In many public relations textbooks, the Federalist Papers are mentioned only briefly after a long discourse on the American Revolution (Bernays, 1952; Cutlip, 1995; Cutlip & Center, 1971; Cutlip et al., 2006; Pimlott, 1951; Wilcox et al., 1989). A possible reason for this is that the Papers do not fit neatly into a ny of the three commonly used approaches to historiography. In many of the textbooks that do mention the Federalist Papers the Papers are viewed as persuasive attempts by Publius that merely employ fundamental elements of public relations (Bernays, 1952; Cutlip, 1995; Cutlip & Center, 1971; Cutlip et al., 2006; Nelson, 1996; Newsom et al., 1989; Nolte & Wilcox, 1979; Pimlott, 1951; Wilcox et al., 1989). They are not always discussed as a fully developed campaign. This research attempts to see to what degr ee the Federalist Papers are the first American public relations campaign. Many of the textbooks discuss the Papers as a tactic and only after a long discussion of Samuel Adams and the Boston Tea Party. The attention paid to the Boston Tea Party is as unj ustified as the lack of attention paid to the Federalist Papers because the discussion in all of the texts that address this topic provides no evidence to support that Sam Adams actually engaged in much more than singular acts. These discussions also do n ot look beyond the acts to relate to public relations theory. Some practitioner literature attempts to trace historical developments in public relations from roots in ancient civilization but does not make a distinction between elements, tactics and campai gns (Bates, 2006). The failure of many texts to differentiate between public relations fundamental elements, tactics and campaigns hampers the accurate study of the fields history
17 and development. Without accurate study of the public relations elements employed, it is impossible to effectively discuss the development of the field. This differentiation is essential to the purpose of defining the first public relations campaign. It is important to note here that a campaign is not the same as a tactic or s trategy. Definitions and Applications Cutlip, et al.s (2006) definition is the most comprehensive definition of the practice as it reflects on the years of development within the field and with that, the changing role of the public relations practitioner This definition also encompasses major defining academic advances. Cutlip, et al.s (2006) definition is especially effective because of the prominence of the text. Cutlip, et al.s (2006) textbook of public relations has been built on a solid legacy of literature dating as far back as 1952 when the first edition of Effective Public Relations was published. Since then, Cutlip, et al (2006) have carved out a place for their work as a leading text that has been regarded in some circles as, the bible of p ublic relations (Cutlip, et al., 2006, p. xv). Cutlip, et al. (2006) defines public relations as the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and the publics on whom its success or failur e depends (Cutlip, et al., 2006, p.5). The first part of Cutlip et al.s (2006) definition addresses whether the public relations body that is carrying out the decisions has the support of the managing body within the organization. So, it is important to establish whether or not Publius served in a management capacity. Did the members of Publius help make the decisions that guided the new nation? Did they have the support of their peers at the constitutional conventions? At first glance it may seem diff icult to define who the management body, also known as the dominant coalition, was in the 1700s. The United States under the Articles of
18 Confederation was a loosely connected group of sovereign states. The 13 states were known as the United States at thi s point in history but were united only by a weak confederate government that had an embarrassingly low level of authority over the states. The states operated as sovereign nations that printed their own money, made their own international treaties and had their own trade laws among other provisions. Because of the states standing as sovereign nations, the Articles of Confederation did not create an executive or judicial branch in the national government and so it is not easy to pinpoint exactly who manag ed the country at this time (Boyer, Clark, Kett, Salisbury, Sitkoff & Woloch, 1996; Kramnick, 1987). The one part of a government that the Articles provided was a unicameral legislative branch that was granted virtually no power (Kramnick, 1987, p.19). The lack of an empowered central government was most likely a backlash from English rule that many people at the time considered a despotic monarchy (Jillson & Wilson, 1987). Because of the ineffective federal government, the true decision makers in the U nited States were the individual state leaders. Under Article II of the Articles of Confederation, each state was to retain its sovereignty and independence (Kramnick, 1987). Therefore, each state had its own government that was charged with the responsibi lity to make decisions for its citizens. The result of a weak national government and opposing state governments was a crippling inability of the central government to pass any legislation, as any proposed law needed unanimous consent from the states to go into effect (Boyer, 1996; Jillson & Wilson, 1987). Often, one state voted against a provision that the other 12 had approved and blocked the provision from becoming law. For this reason, any proposal that sought to increase state contributions to the cent ral government or that sought to make contributions mandatory, could never be passed. The central government could only request voluntary contributions from the
19 states; a request that frequently went ignored (Jillson & Wilson, 1987). In addition to this, the central government had been given no power to levy taxes, as this was a right reserved for the sovereign states. These problems resulted in a financially insolvent central government that was deep in foreign debt form the Revolutionary War. The governm ents financial problems disabled it from repaying any significant amount of the war debt that damaged the new nations reputation among other trade nations. The Articles of Confederation proved problematic for other reasons. Because each of the states ha d the authority to establish their own international trade agreements and treaties, they did. Diplomatic problems spilled over into domestic problems with the native peoples in the West. The confederation had no authority to raise an army and could not rai se funding to sustain its forts bordering the West. This caused problems with states and territories that bordered unclaimed land. Other domestic problems soon surfaced. Shays rebellion in Massachusetts highlighted financial problems in the states and re sulted in a gross violation of personal rights, as they were understood from English common law. Massachusetts suspended the writ of habeas corpus and held many people who were thought to be supporters of the rebellion without cause. The infringement on pe rsonal rights was a widely discussed topic in many states. Because of the failure in design and other flaws, the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was largely ineffective (Hampshire -Monk, 1992). All of these problems led to a call for amendments to the Articles of Confederation in the fall of 1787. Many states were hesitant but the central government was persuaded by interested parties to sanction a convention formed for the purpose of amending the Articles. Eventually, and after long deliberation, the 13 states sent delegates to the convention and the process of
20 amending the Articles began on May 25, 1787, in Philadelphia (Maggs, 2007). All of the delegates were bound to keep the proceedings of the convention confidential until the convention was adjourned. The process was difficult but in the end the Constitution was the result of compromise. The Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution on September 27, 1787, and submitted it to the various states the following day (Maggs, 2007). Written into Article seven of the Constitution was the process for ratification and the requirements needed for the new government to go into effect. Article seven required that nine of the 13 states ratify the Constitution for the government to be es tablished between those states. As illustrated, the central government under the Articles of Confederation was ineffective and had no decision -making authority, but the state leaders did. The state leaders however did not come together and form one cohe sive ruling body but instead usually opposed one another and prevented national policy proposals from moving forward. Although what Dozier, Grunig and Grunig (1995) referred to as the dominant coalition did not exist in the United States at this point, the federal body that could most closely be related to what could be presently referred to as a dominant coalition, would have been the Constitutional Convention, also known as the Philadelphia Convention (Boyer et al, 1996). The Philadelphia Convention was comprised of 55 delegates from a majority of the states and met in 1787 (Boyer et al, 1996). The people who comprised this convention enjoyed firmly established reputations among their peers (Boyer et al, 1996). Especially notable members include Geo rge Washington, who had established credibility from, among other achievements, the First Continental Congress in 1774 (Boyer et al, 1996). Alexander Hamilton was included at this convention. Hamilton had originally achieved personal accolades in the penni ng of a pamphlet, A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress from the Calumnies of their Enemies
21 (short title), at the age of 18 and then again upon his appointment as aide de -camp and personal secretary to, then General, Washington during the Revolu tionary War (Schmucker, 1856). Also in attendance was James Madison who had built his reputation as a well respected member of the continental community as far back as 1774 when he was a member of the Orange County Committee of Safety (Sobel, 1990). He r eceived public acclaim again in 1776 as a member of the Williamsburg Convention (Sobel, 1990). The Philadelphia Convention had been assembled to fix two primary problems with the Articles of Confederation but eventually, at the encouragement of Madison, d ecided to scrap the document entirely and draft a new Constitution (Hampshire -Monk, 1992). The Philadelphia Conventions sense of authority to restructure the entire national government may be unfounded as argued by many political theorists but is a testa ment to the position of the members of the Philadelphia Convention as the nations first management body and dominant coalition ( Personal Communication, Lawrence Dodd, 2007). Madison and Hamilton were both present and prominent members of the Philadelphia Convention (Boyer et al, 1996). Their status as being in this dominant coalition is secured, but that of Jay, the third co author of the Federalist Papers is not as solid. John Jay was not present at the Philadelphia Convention (Johnson, 1970). Despi te his lack of attendance, Jay was by no means devoid of leadership experience and national praise. Jay had been well known as the man who drafted the first Constitution of New York in August 1776 and had been supported and recognized by the Sons of Libert y as a zealous worker and upright citizen (Johnson, 1970). These and other attributes of Jays character and social connections established him as a prominent member of early American political life. Eventually, Washington appointed Jay the first chief jus tice of the United States, which is a glowing testament to Jays personal character
22 and influence (Johnson, 1970). Although not directly placed in what logic has termed the first American dominant coalition, Jay did have strategic access to it. It is cle ar that he functioned as a potential influence on the minds of American leaders and was empowered by his position. This is important to public relations theory as stated by Grunig, Grunig and Dozier (2006) in that if Jay was to perform with Madison and Ham ilton as part of a public relations function, the men would need to be, empowered as a distinctive and strategic managerial function if [they] are to play a role, (Grunig, Grunig and Dozier, 2006, p. 38) in the decision making processes of the early nati on. The description of these mens positions in society makes clear that these men Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were in a management position in relation to their peers. Although there existed no official organization in the modern sense, the Phil adelphia Convention of 1787 was an organization of men in power positions within the developing nation (Boyer et al., 1996). These men expressly made decisions that impacted not only the members of the Philadelphia, or as it became known, the Constitution al Convention, but of all the citizens of the United States. This places them in a strategic position with management like officials at the time. Texts such as Dunns (1986) Public relations also emphasize the importance of public relations performance a s a management function (Dunn, 1986). Because these three men served as delegates to their various states before and during the process of developing the Constitution and distributing the Federalist Papers it is easy to confirm that they did establish a nd maintain mutually beneficial relationships between their federal government and, the publics on whom [their] success or failure depends (Cutlip, et al., 2006, p.5). This fulfills the second portion of the definition from Cutlip et als text.
23 The esta blishment of Hamilton, Madison and Jay as a management body and the solidification of a relationship between Publius and their publics does little to support that the Federalist Papers were indeed a public relations campaign. There are several frameworks through which to define a public relations campaign. Despite the multitude of public relations process models in present use, one will be discussed here; the ROPES model. This process model was decided upon because of its presence in practitioner literatur e and for the completeness of the process description. This process model reflects the practice of public relations in the field and delineates best practices for practitioners. The process model is described by and built upon a model by Hendrix (1998) but most effectively illustrated by Kelly (2001). An exact and descriptive process is the one built upon Hendrixs (1998) model explicated in his 1998 edition of Public Relations Cases. This process, known as the ROPE process, has been expanded upon by subs equent scholarly work (Kelly, 2001) and is now referred to as the ROPES process. ROPES is a functional acronym for research, objectives, programming, evaluation and stewardship (Kelly, 2001). The emphasis on relationships is one reason that ROPES was used in this analysis. Other models, such as the four -step process used by Cutlip, et al. (2006), fail to emphasize the importance of the maintenance of relationships in their process but oddly point out that the same maintenance is part of the definition of public relations (Cutlip, et al., 2006). Research The ROPES process begins with research, which is said to be the most important step in the ROPES process (Kelly, 2001). Emphasis is placed on the first step in the public relations process because, althoug h the process is said to be cyclical, all subsequent steps are built on research (Kelly, 2001). Research is done in three areas: organization, opportunity, and publics.
24 Organizational research must be done so that the practitioner is intensely familiar wit h the organizations history, finances, personnel, products and services, and past public relations efforts (Kelly, 2001, p. 286). Opportunity research follows so that the practitioner is sure that his or her view of the problem is in line with his or h er publics view of the problem (Kelly, 2001). Research of publics involves the segmentation of the publics based on problem recognition, level of involvement, and constraint recognition (Kelly, 2001). It is in this step that Publius would be able to se gment their target publics and set specific goals for each of them. It may seem at first glance that Publius was targeting the great masses with one message, but Nevins (1962) supports the belief that Publius developed specific plans for specific target publics and even developed one -onone communications strategies for local figures such as John Hancock. Objectives The second step of the public relations process is objectives (Kelly, 2001). This step builds upon the research conducted in step one and furt her specifies the organizations goals and develops the campaigns goals. Goals are defined as being general desired results of public relations efforts, which are different from objectives. Objectives are defined as specific results with specific outcomes (Kelly, 2001). Kelly (2001) separates output objectives from impact objectives in similar form to Hendrix (1998). Hendrix (1998) states that output objectives are stated intentions regarding program production and effort (Hendrix, 1998, p.25) while impa ct objectives represent specific intended effects of public relations programs on their audiences (Hendrix, 1998, p.26). Output objectives focus on the public relations techniques used to communicate with publics (e.g. small group meetings, speeches, di rect mail, special events, newsletters, story placements, public service announcements) (Kelly, 2001, p.287) and the
25 impact objectives focus on the five communication effects (awareness, accuracy, understanding, agreement, and behavior) (Kelly, 2001, p. 287). Objectives have become more sophisticated over time and although it may now be possible for a researcher to clearly state Publius objectives in Kellys (2001) desired format an infinitive verb, a single outcome stated as receiver of the verbs action, the magnitude of the action expressed in quantifiable terms, the targeted public and a target date or time frame for achieving the outcome it would make a difficult task of rummaging through decades -old documents to find specified grammatical us age. It is sufficient, given the time lapse, to focus on the existence of specified outcomes accompanied by desired degrees of effectiveness tailored to each target public and defined along a timeline. Programming The third step in the ROPES process model is programming. Programming is separated into two parts: planning and implementing (Kelly, 2001). Kelly (2001) states that the first part results in a written communications plan (Kelly, 200, pp.288). In the communications plan a synopsis of the resear ch supporting and shaping each objective is given, followed by an outline of the activities and tasks required to accomplish the objective including selected public relations techniques (Kelly, 2001, p.288). While Publius did not have one concise docume nt, as many contemporary practitioners would desire, they did letters of correspondence between the men. As will be shown in the data, the men lived in different areas, and without the convenience of modern communication, they had to rely on written communication to convey their intentions. What survives of this medium of communication captured the mens intentions for current analysis, so combining these letters could conceivably leave a record of their centuries old communications plan.
26 In t his portion o f the ROPES process persuasion theory is applicable. Persuasion is integral to programming in that it is necessary, especially in the case of multiple authors, for some men to make small concessions of their own personal convictions in order to influence t he great masses of public opinion. Persuasion Persuasion theory relevant to this study connects the practice of public relations to persuasive efforts. Pfau and Wan (2006) indicate that persuasions place in public relations has been solidified as far bac k as 1955 when they stated that Bernays, defined the function of public relations in terms of using information, persuasion, and adjustment to engineer public support for an activity, cause, movement or institution (Pfau & Wan, 2006, p. 101). They also asserted that persuasion continues to be an essential function of contemporary public relations (Pfau & Wan, 2006). Their assertion is that persuasion serves a vital function to public relations especially when the public relations function is directed at external publics. This is supported by many other scholars in the field of public relations including Barney and Black (1994) who stated that public relations practitioners many times fulfill the role of advocate in the arena of public opinion. This r equires the tools of persuasion (Barney & Black, 1994, p. 240). Pavlick (1987) also affirms that public relations has traditionally been viewed as a form of persuasive communication, (Pavlick, 1987, pg. 26). In fact, this perspective has been perpetuat ed when compared to the nature of public relations. Pfau and Wan (2006) state that many core functions of public relations use an implicit or explicit goal of cultivating or maintaining a positive organizational image and persuasion is key to this effort. Miller (1989) supports this assertion. He states that both persuasion and public relations are both primarily concerned with exerting symbolic control over relevant aspects of the environment (Miller, 1989, p. 45). Miller (1989) continues to expound that persuasion is part of human existence.
27 Persuasion is defined as a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to shape, reinforce and/or change their attitudes, beliefs or behavior regarding an issue through the transmission of a message (Perloff, 2003; Pfau & Wan, 2006; Miller, 1989). Although the various details of persuasion vary from scholar to scholar, the main elements have been embodied above. The relation of these elements to public relations is highlighted by Lowery an d DeFleurs (1995) assertion that it is difficult to communicate without persuasion and that persuasion is a key element of a lot of communications, not only public relations. This is undeniable in that public relations is often charged with one of these r esponsibilities; to shape, reinforce, and/or change the way publics think or regard their organizations, which are the same three functions of persuasion (Lowery & Defleur, 1995). Specific applications from persuasion theory that are related to public rela tions include involvement and information processing and factors that affect persuasion. A critical problem in developing persuasive messages in public relations is exactly how the public relations practitioner decides upon appropriate messages, channels and sources to overcome obstacles to behavior and attitude change. Many of the theories of attitude and behavior are complementary and therefore overlap in useful application (Slater, 1999). Because of the relationship of persuasion theories to each other many of the theories of persuasion can be used to determine the kind of change needed to achieve organizational goals. Also, many persuasion theories can be used to develop messages and choose channels through which to deliver the messages to audiences ( Slater, 1999). It is understood that Publius did not have a contemporary conceptualization of persuasion theory to use to their advantage. However, it is possible that Publius used persuasive approaches to message development, channel selection and audien ce segmentation. Of the many persuasive theories through which Publius choices can be
28 analyzed, the heuristic -systematic model or elaboration likelihood model of dual processing is most applicable. The heuristic -systematic model of dual processing assert s that audience members use one of two (and in some cases both) modes of cognitive processing depending on many factors, but primarily, on cognitive demands and level of involvement. The ability to use other persuasion theories in this analysis is limited because so little evidence of intended actions remains for analysis. The inability to interview Publius or to refer to a specified plan of action severely limits the ability of present day researchers to use other theoretic approaches to persuasion. The h euristic -systematic model differentiate[s] systematic (or central route) processing from heuristic (or peripheral route) processing (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994, p 460). Systematic processing occurs when people are highly involved in the content of the m essage and when they are willing and able to exert considerable cognitive effort (Chaiken, 1980, p. 752) in processing the message (Bohner, Rank, Reinhard, Einwiller & Erb, 1998). In engaging in active cognitive processes, recipients of a message analyz e the message in depth and arrive at a conclusion about the message only after the content has been scrutinized (Chaiken, 1980; Chen, Duckworth & Chaiken, 1999; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). On the other hand, heuristic processing requires little cognitive exertion on the part of the message recipient. Instead of using in depth analysis of a messages content, recipients rely on heuristics, which are knowledge structures, presumably learned and stored in memory (Chen, Duckworrth & Chaiken, 1999 p. 44) an d easily retrieved from memory. The mode of processing used by a recipient is important for many reasons, if the message sender is aware that the recipients of his or her message are highly involved in the topic and that they are capable of devoting a si gnificant amount of cognitive effort toward the topic, the
29 message sender will devote his or her resources to developing a content rich, detailed message (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). This is because the recipient will systematically process the message a nd will be concerned more with content than peripheral cues (Chaiken, 1980). Other reasons that recipients may systematically process the message include when recipients feel that the topic of the message is personally important to them, when they feel th at their opinions or actions have important consequences for themselves (Chaiken, 1980, p. 754) and when they are more concerned with the reliability of the message than the time it takes to fully analyze the message (Chaiken, 1980). In other cases, a r ecipient is more reliant on peripheral cues such as the message sources identity and on other peoples opinions, or sheer length of a message (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994, p. 460). Heuristic processing has been shown to have a minimal long -term effect o n persuasion while systematic processing results in greater longterm persuasive impact (Chaiken, 1980). Chen et al. (1999) assert that while either mode of processing may occur alone, heuristic and systematic modes of processing may also co -occur (Chen et al., 1999). The combination of processing modes is called hybrid processing (Meyers Levy and Maheswaran, 2004). They assert that the concurrence of systematic and heuristic processing results in positive persuasion results when both the heuristic and systematic message cues are complementary (Meyers -Levy & Maheswaran, 2004). By doing research on the messages target audiences, the message sender can decide which message characteristics to devote resources to. In cases where heuristic processing is d ominant, the message sender will see more immediate results by focusing on source characteristics rather than message content and detail (Chaiken, 1980; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994; Chen et al, 1999; Meyers -Levy & Maheswaran, 2004). The opposite is true when audiences are engaged in
30 systematic processing: the message sender will be more successful in his or her persuasive efforts by detailing message content (Chaiken, 1980; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994; Chen et al, 1999; Meyers -Levy & Maheswaran, 2004). Under standing audience involvement is important to segmenting audiences, developing messages and selecting message channels. The heuristic systematic model aides in disseminating reasons Publius developed messages in the way they did and chose specific channel s of distribution. Thus, audiences cognitive tendencies are important factors to be determined in the research step of ROPES but are really applied in the programming phase of ROPES. Evaluation Programming is followed by evaluation (Kelly, 2001). When t he implementation stage of programming is complete, the process of programming is evaluated in relation to the objectives that were outlined earlier in the process (Kelly, 2001). Evaluation looks at the degree to which these stated objectives were met by t he public relations functions. Contemporary public relations departments use evaluation along every step of the process and asses the effectiveness of different stages such as the accessibility of certain tactics and pre testing of certain messages. Despi te periodic evaluation, the main portion of evaluation is conducted after programming and enhances the research process in that this step allows for public feedback (Kelly, 2001). Stewardship Kelly adds a critical step to the ROPE process by adding the S or stewardship in ROPES. Kelly (2001) is not the first scholar responsible for the addition of stewardship to a process model, Lowery and Defleur (1995) added stewardship as a portion of the persuasive process specifically when persuasion is discussed as being connected to public relations practice. Stewardship consists of four elements: reciprocity, responsibility, reporting and relationship nurturing. The norm of reciprocity highlights that when public[s] support organizations by
31 adopting positive atti tudes and behavior, the organizations receiving the support must reciprocate (Kelly, 2001, p. 284). When organizations reciprocate, they strengthen the publics sense of equal worth and create fertile ground for symmetrical two -way communications. The two -way symmetrical model of public relations represents public relations as a process of continual and reciprocal exchange between an organization and its key publics (Kelly, 2001). Responsibility relates directly to the social responsibility of the organi zation. Basically, this element dictates that the organization act as good as its citizens and demonstrate, through actions, that the organization is worthy of the publics support (Kelly, 2001). Reporting stresses that the organization is responsible for reporting to publics that are affected by the organizations actions or may affect the organization in their actions (Kelly, 2001). The final element of stewardship is relationship nurturing, which accentuates the importance of the organizations dedicati on to its publics and the organizations commitment to keep them at the forefront of the organizations consciousness (Kelly, 2001). Stewardship, as a final step in the public relations process model, will be measured by evaluating to what degree Publiu s demonstrated their appreciation, responsibility and accountability to their publics by taking into account their concerns. One way that this may be demonstrated is in tracing the evolution of the Bill of Rights from an idea to a critical portion of the C onstitution. Research Questions RQ1 : Did any of the authors of the Federalist Papers m isrepresent their own political beliefs in order to champion a more popular political idea that would have a more persuasive impact in increasing the likelihood of each s tate ratifying the Constitution? RQ2 : Is there a pattern between the timeline of each states ratification of the Constitution and the publication dates of the individual Federalist Papers?
32 RQ3 : Are any elements of the ROPES process present in the analysis of the Papers and the personal letters? RQ4 : Is there any evidence that Publius used persuasive approaches in any step of the ROPES process? RQ5 : Based on the findings of the preceding questions, to what extent can the Federalist Papers be viewed as a se minal American public relations campaign under contemporary public relations process models and modern persuasion theory?
33 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze original documents to reveal their significance and meaning. I t was necessary to accurately analyze the environment in which the Papers were published. Qualitative content analysis allowed the researchers to take into account the setting, situation and the time in which the documents were published. This was especial ly critical to the purpose of this research because establishing the environment into which the Federalist Papers were released was important in order to see exactly what purpose the Papers served. It was also important to establish the intentions of the a uthors of the Federalist Papers These factors were valuable to the research questions in that they enabled the research to shed light onto whether or not the Federalist Papers were part of a comprehensive campaign launched in order to convince the America n public that the new Constitution was integral to progress. Qualitative content analysis provided some advantages over traditional content methods. Atheide (1996) asserts that this direct research of primary documents takes culture and cultural processes into account while traditional research methods, including quantitative content analysis, do not. Qualitative content analysis uses the effective environment in which the original documents were developed, produced and published in the collection and the coding of the data (Altheide, 1996). Because the Federalist Papers were largely a product of the time and the social environment in which they developed, this is important to the proper analysis of the work. The ethnographic data not only guided the collec tion of the data but also the interpretation of the collected data. Because this study was partly concerned with the persuasive approaches to the Federalist Papers it was essential that the environment before and after their publication be assessed. Trad itional research methods such as quantitative analysis are less desirable for the purpose of interpreting the Federalist Papers because such methods are guided by strict rules of
34 data collection and do not allow for environmental factors (Atheide, 1996). A lso, a determination of the frequency of terms provides no insight into the more subtle messages within the documents. Ethnographic Survey of the E nvironment An ethnographic content analysis of the environment into which the Federalist Papers were publish ed was the first step in the research process. Ethnography was critically important to the goals of this research for the reason that it was important to assess the values and the culture of the time in which the documents were published (Altheide, 1996; B erg, 2001). This phase was seen as a discovery of the way of life at a previous time in American history. This period was presumed to be a transitional period according to public relations scholars who have studied nation building because the political and socioeconomic conditions at this time were rapidly changing (Molleda & Moreno, 2006). This implies that cultural descriptors may have been different before and after the publication and distribution of the essays (Molleda & Moreno, 2006). It was assumed t hat through this dissemination of cultural details, it would be revealed that the Federalist Papers did not have a short -term periodic impact on early American society but instead imposed a lasting impression that sustains to present day. Strategies used if any, by Publius to create and distribu te the documents were analyzed to reveal whether the Federalist Papers were a lone tactic or part of a larger campaign by Publius to persuade the population of the 13 states that the new Constitution was necessary to press forward as a nation. Becoming familiar with the process the authors took in developing these documents was hoped to reveal the following : What the authors (Publius) intentions were for publishing the Papers ? Why the authors presented the infor mation in the manner that they did?
35 Why the authors published the papers along the timeline that they did? What was the impact of the Papers publication? This survey of the environment also revealed vital information about the audience for which the Pape rs were intended. The ethnographic survey was especially important because it provided a deep understanding of the social situation surrounding the documents, which aided in the assessment of the persuasive value of the Papers. This comparison was possible because Publius individual personal beliefs were compared to the ideas that were championed in the Federalist Papers This perspective was also hoped to reveal to the researcher if the Papers were a component of a larger, comprehensive public relations c ampaign or if the Papers were simply a very effective public relations tactic. Selection of Documents Secondary to the ethnographic survey is the selection of the documents that were used for the data analysis. Because the qualitative content analysis was an evolutionary process and advanced with the progression of data collection, this was a dynamic process of selection (Altheide, 1996). Initially there were two sets of data for document analysis. The first of these two document sets was the Federalis t Papers The full population of the 85 Federalist Papers was included in this analysis. The Papers were initially published as periodicals in New York City newspapers beginning on October 27, 1787. Due to the sheer age of the documents compounded with th eir original medium, very few copies of the complete Federalist Papers are available in their original form. Fortunately, this analysis did not require the original manuscripts and so Penguin Classics 1987 reprint of the MLean edition edited by Isaac Kra mnick served as proxy for the original documents. This edition of the Federalist Papers has long been the preferred version for scholars of political science and so it suited the purpose of this research (Maggs, 2007). The data set for these documents has been categorized according to a protocol
36 that separates the documents first based on author, then date of publication followed by subject matter. Finally, where applicable, any reference or resemblance to the ROPES process has also be coded, as this was of direct importance to the goal of this research. The ROPES process was broken into many different components, as it was most likely that Publius would have referenced one small part at a time and would not have addressed a larger campaign. After the doc ument selection, the process logically flowed into the next step that involved document analysis guided by a preliminary or ideal protocol as explicated above. Upon completion of the first set of document analysis, the protocol was revised. This was als o repeated for the second data set. The sample of documents was then revised at this point based on initial document analysis. The organization, compilation and coding of the data followed. At this point the data collected was viewed through the models o f public relations practice and persuasion covered in the review of literature. The development and publication of the Papers was compared to models of current public relations campaigns after any persuasive processes inherent in the documents were explicated. This comparison of the data collection with contemporary theories was hoped to shed light on why the Federalist Papers has been viewed as a seminal public relations campaign in America. The second category of documents consists of 117 letters of corr espondence between Publius and their peers. The primary correspondence between the authors, Hamilton, Madison and Jay comprised only a small number of the letters containing valuable information regarding the ratification of the Constitution and so corresp ondence from or to these three men and their peers was included. It was impossible to conduct a census of these documents because it was impossible to know how many of these documents were penned due to the passage of time. In
37 addition to this, it was nea r impossible to locate all of the original documents that did survive the 200+ years that have passed since their origination. Purposive sampling was conducted for the documents located in order to eliminate any that were unrelated to political content. For example, there was a good chance that many of the letters between Hamilton, Madison and Jay were of a personal nature and not at all related to political ideals. Since personal information not related to political life was of no concern to the researc her, purposive sampling was used to handpick documents that pertain to the Federalist Papers (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Therefore, unrelated information as determined by the coder was not mentioned or included in the data set. The protocol for the data collection in these letters first focused on constructing several categories into which these letters were sorted. Of primary importance was the author of the correspondence followed by the addressee to which the letter was sent. These categories were critic al to avoid confusion between the mens beliefs. Contrary to what may seem logical for a collaborative publication, each of these men held very different views from each other. The purpose of separating the authors from each other is to determine whether any individual misrepresented his own personal beliefs in the Federalist Papers by championing a more popular belief held by various publics in order to get the Constitution ratified. Changing or misrepresenting ones own views for the benefit of fulfilling a common goal ties directly to persuasion theory and therefore was critical to the goal of this research. As Bernays (1923) asserts, it is important to study carefully the relationship between public opinion and the organs that maintain it or that influ ence it to change (Bernays, 1923, p.76). Bernays also emphasizes that:
38 It is important to conform to the standards of the organ which projects ideas as it is to present to this organ such ideas as will conform to the fundamental understanding and appreci ation of the public to which they are ultimately to appeal (Bernays, 1923, p. 80). Bernays (1923) statements provide a possible explanation for why any one of the three men may have opted to change or alter their own views in order to garner public suppor t for the new Constitution. In the comparison of the letters to the Federalist, any indication that there had been some change or compromise in belief systems supported the long held assertion by public relations scholars that Publius utilized fundamental elements of public relations practice in their efforts to ratify the new Constitution (Hoy, et al., 2007; Marston, 1979; Moore & Kalupa, 1985; Nolte 1979). Other categories attempted to trace any specified timeline that may have dictated the publication dates of the Papers. Furthermore, subject matter was analyzed so that, with respect to each individual, changes between personal convictions and published ideals could be analyzed for the persuasive purposes expressed previously. It was predicted that any correspondence or documents addressing a bill of rights was of particular importance in relation to the public relations process model used as a mold for contemporary public relations practice. Other pertinent issues such as branches of federal or state government were coded. Any reference to the ROPES process was coded, as this was of obvious direct importance to the goal of this research. The ROPES process was broken into many different components, as it was most likely that Publius referenced one smal l part at a time and did not addressed a larger campaign. Two graduate students were employed as coders. A subset of 10% of the documents were selected in determine inter coder reliability. The coders were trained on how to use the protocol to collect da ta. Certain items on the protocol such as author, addressee, date of publication, publication location and nature of document had 100% agreement between the coders while
39 other items on the code diagram such as research, objectives, foreign relations and bi ll of rights had a 90% agreement.
40 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS RQ1: Did any of the authors of the Federalist Papers misrepresent their own political beliefs in order to champion a more popular political idea that would have a more persuasive impact in increasing th e likelihood of each state ratifying the Constitution? The information discovered in the analysis of the Federalist Papers and the personal correspondence among the men makes it impossible to provide a definitive answer to this question. The inconsistenc ies and errors in the Papers and the evidence of shifting personal beliefs in the personal letters devalue any answer that may be provided for this question. Surprisingly, the Papers were redundant and/or contradictory in their coverage of many issues and in some cases, the author of a particular essay would be completely wrong in his explanation of the Constitution. Despite what the titles of the essays may indicate, many essays repeated the very same concepts that had been discussed previously. A survey of the essay titles alone would indicate that many different topics were covered and that some topics were so expansive as to require many different essays discuss them. When more than one essay was dedicated to a particular subject, the titles of the fol lowing essays were some variation of The Same Subject Continued. A deeper analysis of the essays content shows that regardless of the titles and any sequential essays, many of the essays digressed from their stated topic and repeated subject matter expl icated in previous essays. This resulted in some topics being covered multiple times in multiple essays; sometimes more than three essays claiming to cover different subject areas explained the same topic. Occasionally, this resulted in both Madison and H amilton, two of the three components of Publius, covering the same topic in different essays. One example of this occurs when Hamilton discusses the extent of the federal governments authority in Federalist
41 27 and makes completely different assertions th an Madison does on the same topic in Federalist 44. In addition to repeating topics and contradicting previous assertions, some essays used the same rhetorical examples to make completely different points. In many of the essays, Publius uses examples from classical times to illustrate concepts. What is interesting in the use of these classical examples is that Hamilton often used tales of the Peloponnesian war and the republics of Athens, Sparta and Carthage ( Federalist Papers 6) before Madison used the sa me examples again in his arguments. While this alone is not striking, the two men used the same examples to make vastly different points. For example, Hamilton, in Federalist 6, discusses Sparta, Carthage and Athens to the extent that these were republics that were continually engaged in war among each other. Specifically, Hamilton states that Carthage and Athens were commercial city -states and implies that the powerful commercial interests in these republics were influential in the continual wars among the Greek city -states. The point that Hamilton is trying to make is that commercialism instigates war. Later in Federalist Paper 18, Madison discusses the same Greek republics. Madison admires the various characteristics of the city -states but then concludes that the city -states were unsuccessful because of the continuous warring. He then states that the warring was caused by the independence of the republics, not commercial interests. Even more interesting, Hamilton contradicts his own statements made in Fed eralist 6 in Federalist 12 by saying that commerce is the most productive source of national wealth (Madison et al., 1987, p. 134) and that commerce is a good thing for a nation. In Federalist 38 Madison admires the Greeks for the deliberative choices made in their rulers. He states that the Athenians were wise to disallow one man to reign over all of their people. By having a coalition of many men, the Athenians avoided re living past experiences of
42 despotic rulers. This goes directly against the asse rtions Madison made previously in Federalist 18. Other areas of the Federalist that offer contradictory explanations are essays that refer to the powers of Senators ( Federalist 62 and 63) and the essays that discuss the process of electing the President ( Federalist 68 and 44) These examples are only a few of the cases of redundancy and contradictory points made in the Federalist Papers There are many more. More important than the cases of redundant and contradictory statements are the incorrect explanat ions of the Constitution. Many of the Federalist Papers seek to explain parts of the new Constitution. In Federalist 77 and 78, Hamilton incorrectly describes the process of executive appointments to the Supreme Court while Federalist 67 written by Madis on, correctly describes the process of judicial appointments. Also problematic is the evidence that the men, specifically Madison, changed their personal beliefs throughout the process of authoring the Papers and fighting for the ratification of the Cons titution. The clearest example of this is Madisons position on a bill of rights. A bill of rights is a set of amendments that guarantees certain rights to the people that cannot be infringed upon by the government. Both Hamilton and Madison were strongl y against the inclusion of a bill of rights. Madison personally felt, as indicated in several of his personal letters, that a bill of rights was unnecessary. Then, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated October 17, 1788, Madison changed his tune. He acknow ledged that some people wanted a bill of rights. The peoples desire for a bill of rights would have been a natural reaction at this time because the state governments had notorious reputations for infringing upon individual liberties. The instance of thi s most called upon at the time was the Massachusetts governments reaction to Shays rebellion in which the state government suspended the writ of habeas corpus in order to hold people in custody that the government felt were responsible for the rebellion. In the October 17th
43 letter, Madison says My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights, provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration (Madison, 2006, p. 159). Then, in the same letter, Madiso n indicates that a bill of rights would be wholly ineffective even if it were in place because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights to those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have b een committed by overbearing majorities in every state (Madison, 2006, p. 159). In another letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 9, 1787, Madison says that George Washington and other notable people are in favor of a bill of rights but gives no further information about his own beliefs. On December 14, 1787, Madison writes to Archibald Stuart, a close friend to Thomas Jefferson, that he is afraid of the consequences of adding a bill of rights and verbalizes his fear that Virginias decision to add amen dments to a conditional ratification will tear the union apart. In verbalizing his fears about a bill of rights, Madison contradicts the assertions that he made in his October letter to Jefferson. In the end, despite all of Madisons equivocating, he writ es several proposed amendments and presents them at the first session of the new Congress. Once ratified, these amendments became known as the Bill of Rights. The waffling between aversion to and support for a bill of rights is a prime example of Madison s propensity to change his beliefs. This is also an indication that, at any time, personal convictions may change. As these illustrations make clear, there is not one clear reference point by which to judge each of the mens personal convictions. At any t ime, Hamilton, Madison or Jay may have changed their ideas regarding good government. In addition, the Federalist Papers do not accurately reflect one coherent political ideology or group of political sympathies. Because of these factors, it is impossible to determine whether or not Publius changed their personal beliefs on government in order to present an argument that may have been more
44 persuasive to the American public in order to increase the chances of the Constitutions ratification. RQ2 : Is there a pattern between the timeline of each states ratification of the Constitution and the publication dates of the individual Federalist Papers? The Federalist Papers were published in six of the 13 states. In four of these, there was a pattern: all of the Federalist Papers were published before the state ratified the Constitution. The fifth and sixth states published some of the Papers after the ratification of the Constitution. In all six states there are interesting publication details that are worth dis cussing. The first essay was published in New York City newspapers on October 27, 1787. Seventeen more Federalist Papers were published in New York City newspapers and one and one half months passed before the first state, Delaware, ratified the Constitu tion on December 7, 1787, with a unanimous vote of 30 delegates in favor of the Constitution (Ashbrook, n.d.). None of the Federalist Papers were published in Delaware (Crane, 1964). After December 7, 1787, Federalist Papers 19-21 were then published in N ew York City before Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution on December 12, 1787, with 46 votes in favor of the Constitution and 23 not in favor (Ashbrook, n.d.). Crane (1964) indicates that two newspapers in Pennsylvania published some of the Federalist P apers Table 4 1 illustrates the publication timeline of the Federalist Papers in Pennsylvania in relation to the date of that states ratification of the Constitution and includes the publications where the essays appeared. At the time Pennsylvania ratif ied the Constitution, only Federalist 1 -21 were in circulation in New York City newspapers. Of these papers only Federalist 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 were published in the Pennsylvania papers (Crane, 1964). Federalist 1 was published on November 7, 1787, in the Pe nnsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser. Federalist 2 was published on November 10, 1787, in the Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser and on November 21, 1787, in
45 the Pennsylvania Gazette (Crane, 1964) Federalist 3 was published on November 17, 1787, in the Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser and on November 21, 1787, in the Pennsylvania Gazette (Crane, 1964) On November 28, 1787, Federalist 4 was published in the Pennsylvania Gazette (Crane, 1964). Number 5 was published on the same date in the Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser (Crane, 1964). Number 5 was published with Number 6 on December 5, 1787, in the Pennsylvania Gazette (Crane, 1964) Federalist 7 was published on December 12, 1787, in the Pennsylvania Gazett e (Crane, 1964). After Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution, Federalist 8 -19 were published in the Pennsylvania Gazette from December 19, 1787, to March 19, 1788 (Crane, 1964). No additional Papers were published in the Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekl y Advertiser after November 28, 1787. Crane (1964) adds that a Philadelphia magazine the American Museum published Federalist 1 -6 in November and December 1787. Federalist 22 and 23 were published in New York City by December 18, 1787. Of these Papers only Federalist 23 was published outside of New York City. The next state, New Jersey, ratified the Constitution on December 18 with a unanimous vote of 38 delegates in favor of the Constitution (Ashbrook, n.d.). There is no evidence that any Papers were p ublished in New Jersey. Federalist 24 through 33 were published before Georgia ratified on January 2, 1788, with a unanimous vote of 26 delegates in favor (Ashbrook, n.d.). There is no evidence that any of the Federalists were published in that state and n o evidence that Federalist 24 through 33 were published outside New York City. Federalist 34 and 35 were published in New York City before the next state, Connecticut, ratified the Constitution 128 delegates for and 40 against (Ashbrook, n.d.). There i s no indication that these Papers were published outside New York City or that any of the essays were published
46 in Connecticut. Federalist 36 through 51 were published by February 6, 1788, in New York City when Massachusetts ratified the Constitution by a narrow margin of 187 delegates for and 168 ag ainst (Ashbrook, n.d.). Table 4 2 illustrates the publication timeline of the Federalist Papers in Massachusetts in relation to Massachusetts ratification date and included the publications in which the Papers were published. Federalist Numbers 1,2,3,5,13,14 (in part and later in its entirety) 15 and 23 were published in newspapers in Massachusetts. The American Herald published Federalist 1 on November 12, 1787; Federalist 2 on November 26, 1787; Federalist 5 on December 3, 1787; Federalist 3 on December 10, 1787; Federalist 14 on December 17, 1787; Federalist 15 on December 24, 1787; and Federalist 23 on January 7, 1788 (Crane, 1964). The Massachusetts Centinel published Federalist 13 on December 8, 1787 (C rane, 1964). The Massachusetts Gazette published an excerpt from Federalist # 14 on December 11, 1787, and the Salem Mercury published an excerpt from the same Federalist 14 on December 15, 1787 (Crane, 1964). As indicated in Table 4.2, all of the Federalist Papers that were published in Massachusetts were published before Massachusetts ratified the Constitution. Federalist 52 -77 and MLeans first edition of the Federalist collection were published by the time Maryland ratified the Constitution on April 28 1788, with 63 delegates in favor and 11 not in favor (Ashbrook, n.d.). There is no evidence that any Papers were published in Maryland. No additional Papers were published before South Carolina ratified the Constitution on May 23, 1788, with a majority of 149 in favor and 73 against (Ashbrook, n.d.). There is no evidence that any Papers were published in South Carolina. The remainder of the Papers was published by May 28, 1788 in MLeans second edition collection of the Federalist. After this, New Ha mpshire ratified the Constitution by a narrow margin of 57 for and 47 ag ainst (Ashbrook,
47 n.d.). Table 4 3 shows that one newspaper in New Hampshire, the Freemans Oracle published one Federalist Paper 38 on February 15, 1788 (Crane, 1964). Virginia ratif ied the Constitution on June 25, 1788, with 89 delegates in favor and 79 not in favor. Table 4 4 highlights the publication dates of the Federalist Papers in relation to Virginias ratification date. As Table 4 4 indicates, four Virginian newspapers publi shed some of the Federalist. The Virginia Independent Chronicle published Federalist 1 on December 12, 1787, Federalist 2 on December 19, 1787, and Federalist 3 on December 26, 1787 (Crane, 1964). The Virginia Gazette and Independent Chronicle published Fe deralist 4 on December 22, 1787, and Federalist 5 on December 29, 1787 (Crane, 1964). The Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal published Federalist 6 on January 9, 1788, and the Virginia Gazette published Federalist 16 on April 9, 1788 (Crane, 1964). All of the Federalist Papers were published in New York City originally. The Federalist Papers appeared from September 1787 to August 1788 in New York City newspapers and were also compiled in two editions of books published on March 22, 1788, and May 28, 1788, by th e MLeans brothers publishing house. The second edition contained several essays that were not previously published in newspapers. Federalist 77 85 first appeared in the second edition of the MLean collection and were subsequently published in New York City newspapers between June 14, 1788, and August 16, 1788 (Cooke, 1961). Two months after the complete set of the Federalist was published on July 26, 1788, New York ratified the Constitution by a narrow margin of 30 delegates for and 27 agai nst (Ashbroo k, n.d.). Table 4 5 provides a complete timeline of the Federalist Papers published in New York City and other New York cities
48 including Poughkeepsie and Albany. New York States ratification date is also included in the timeline. Over a year and a half later on November 21, 1789, North Carolina ratified the Constitution with 194 delegates in favor of ratification and 77 against (Ashbrook, n.d.). None of the essays were published in this state. Thirteen months after North Carolina ratified the Constitutio n on May 29, 1790, Rhode Island ratified the Constitution with a narrow margin of 34 delegates in favor and 32 not in favor (Ashbrook, n.d.). Only one newspaper in Rhode Island, the United States Chronicle, published Federalist 1 and 2 on November 22, 1787, and published Federalist 3 on December 27, 1787 (Crane, 1964). Table 4 6 illustrates the Federalist Papers publication in Rhode Island and Rhode Islands ratification date. In each of the states that published the Federalist Papers none of the ratifica tion delegations voted unanimously in favor of the Constitution. The only states that did vote unanimously in favor of the Constitution were Delaware, New Jersey and Georgia, none of which had newspapers that published the Papers (Ashbrook, n.d.). The sta tes that did publish the Papers had close final votes. In Pennsylvania, about 67% of the delegates voted in favor of the Constitution. In this state, seven Papers Federalist 1 -7 were published before the state ratified the Constitution. The remaining es says that were published in that state, Federalist 8 -19, were published after the ratification date and therefore could not have had an impact on the ratification debate. There was no identifiable pattern in the timeline of publication of the Federalist Pa pers and the ratification date in Pennsylvania. Fifty three percent of delegates in Massachusetts voted in favor of the constitution. All the Federalist Papers that were published in that state, Federalist 1 -3,5, 13,and 14, were published before the ratif ication date. Despite this, Massachusetts approved the Constitution almost three
49 months after the last essay was published in that state. The only distinguishable pattern is that all of the Papers were published before the ratification debate. Similar to M assachusettss newspapers, New Hampshire delegates had ratified the Constitution by a narrow margin as well. Fifty -five percent of the delegation voted in favor of the Constitution. Federalist 38 was the only essay to be published in New Hampshire and was published four months before the ratification of the Constitution. Virginia ratified the Constitution by a 53% majority five months after the final Federalist Paper was published in that state. Virginia newspapers published only Federalist 1 -6,15 and 23 (Crane, 1964). New York approved the Constitution by a 53% majority as well and published all of the Federalist Papers (Ashbrook, n.d.). Rhode Island, the last state where the Papers were published and the final state to ratify the Constitution, voted to a pprove the Constitution by a 52% majority. Federalist 1 -3 were published in Rhode Island (Crane, 1964). The last paper was published five months prior to the approval of the Constitution in the state. Again, the only pattern is that all of the Papers were published prior to ratification. RQ3: Are any elements of the ROPES process present in the analysis of the Papers and other documents? Research Research is the first step of the research process. There are three areas of research: organization, opport unity and publics. The personal correspondence of the men and their peers indicate that Publius did engage in organizational research. Hamilton, Madison and Jay did not previously work together on any cohesive effort. Therefore, there is not any true organizational history to be researched. Hamilton himself had previously published several essays in New York City newspapers under the pen name Caesar and his knowledge of his own work would certainly
50 qualify as a familiarity with the organizations past pub lic relations efforts. In addition to this, Hamilton would have known of Jays notoriety in the state and Madisons political success. Compounded with Hamiltons desire to form a group of authors as opposed to singularly writing all of the essays shows th at Hamilton had a deep understanding of Publius capabilities individually and together. In choosing members of the group, Hamilton created an organization of men that he believed could be most effective in their persuasive efforts. In Hamiltons letter to Benjamin Rush, a delegate to the Continental Congress and a physician from Pennsylvania, he includes some of the Federalist Papers but feigns ignorance on the identity of the authors of the Federalist. Despite denying that he knows who is authoring the es says, Hamilton provides a possible reason for why the authors may have chosen to collaborate on the project. He states that the essays he has included in his letter appear evidently to be written by different hands and to aim at full examination of the su bject (Hamilton, 1962, p.333). Publiuss conducted extensive opportunity research. Personal correspondence shows that Publius closely monitored any changes in sentiments toward the Constitution in the states. In doing this, the men also closely monitored which states ratified the Constitution and when. Their letters to each other and their peers indicate that the men were aware of the influence states votes, especially the larger states, would have on other states. At this time, Virginia and Pennsylvan ia were the largest states (Cooke, 1961). New York was an average size state but had particular influence because at the time, the seat of the United States government was in New York City (Maggs, 2007). Jay relayed the importance of the state to George Washington in a letter dated June 30, 1788. Jay posits that the people in the United States think that New York is important and that New York has the capacity to command terms and is able to take its time with regard to policy. Publius knew that the vote s in these states would have a strong influence on
51 any of the smaller states that were to vote on the Constitution after them. Publius recognized that the potential votes in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania were largely influential and therefore present ed a unique opportunity to influence smaller states. The men viewed any states ratification of the Constitution as an opportunity to influence more delegates because eventually, if many states ratified the Constitution, then other states might ratify simp ly for fear of being left out. Personal letters indicate that this was precisely the case with Edmund Randolph, a delegate to the Virginia ratification convention who originally opposed the new Constitution (Related Information, 1999). According to person al letters, Randolph did not approve of the new Constitution initially but when it came up to vote in Virginia, nine states had already approved it and the Union had officially received enough state approvals to go into effect. He feared that Virginia woul d be left out of the Union and be a lone sovereignty with no benefits from the larger Union it bordered. Because of this, he voted in favor of the new Constitution. In addition to state approvals, Publius viewed points that anti -federalists brought up in counter essays as opportunities to discuss certain topics that were more likely to be at the forefront of the publics attention. After recently reading an essay in opposition of a particular topic of the proposed government, the public would have these po ints in mind when they read Publius rebuttal. This would have made Publius efforts more efficient than if they had addressed all parts of the Constitution. The personal letters of the men indicate that they tailored the Federalist Papers to some of the a nti -federalist essays. In some essays, especially those written by Hamilton, the introductory sentences of the essays designate the topic of the essay to be a rebuttal to incorrect assertions made by enemies of the Union.
52 More research into opportunities would have been identifying specific influential men in the various states. In many cases, some of these men were friends of Publius. The reason Publius would have seen these influential people as opportunities is that the men would have been able to forwa rd copies of the essays to newspapers in other states and expand the reach of Publius influence. Research into Publius publics was extensive. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Publius engaged in this type of research. The Federalist Paper s contain information that indicate that the authors of the essays were aware of public sentiments as well as political sentiments of the people in the individual states. They frequently address current issues that the individual states encountered. A spe cific example of this is Publius attention to Shays rebellion in Massachusetts and the subsequent suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in that state. Objectives Publius set clear objectives as defined by contemporary public relations literature. The primary output objective would have been to get the Federalist Papers published in New York. Hamilton arranged the publication of the essays with the MLean publication The Independent Journal The impact objective would have been to get New York to ratify the Constitution and for New Yorks ratification to influence any states that had yet to ratify the Constitution. Based on the influential men Publius identified in their research of opportunities, Publius sent a plethora of copies of the Federalist that they had clipped out of the newspapers after the initial publication in New York City to their peers in other states. The specific output objective of sending these letters was to get these Papers published in newspapers outside of New York City. Hamilton sent many people including George Washington copies of the letters as early as October 30, 1787.
53 Madison was very specific in his instructions regarding the essays. He instructed the receivers of the essays try to get the Papers published in their home s tates. This was a specified output objective: Madison wanted the Papers published outside of New York City. The impact objective would have been that the Papers would influence people and that more delegates would vote in favor of the Constitution. In addi tion to these objectives, Publius also set out to have the essays published in a collection. Hamilton arranged this with the MLean Brothers publishing house. This is another output objective. The impact objective is the same as before, to get the Constitution ratified. Programming Programming is usually split into two parts: planning and implementation. Contemporary public relations literature demands that planning involve a written communications plan. It was hoped that some pieces of a written plan wo uld have been found in the personal letters between Hamilton, Madison and Jay. The personal letters did not yield any such plan. The biggest piece of a written communications plan can be seen in a letter sent from Hamilton to Madison requesting a meeting w ith him. If Mr. Madison should be disengaged this Evening Mr. Hamilton would be obliged by an opportunity of conversing with him at his lodgings for half an hour. If engaged this Evening he will thank him to say whether tomorrow Evening will suit (Hamilton 1962, pp. 307308). This letter was most probably written between October 1787 and March 4, 1788. The best argument can be made if this letter were published in October, as it would have been precisely when Hamilton was beginning the series of papers an d would have approached Madison; however, the exact date of the letter is unknown. Scholars place this letter in such a wide time frame because it is the only period in which Madison was in New York and able to meet with Hamilton on such short notice. The reason this letter is a strong argument for the presence of
54 planning is that it indicates that Hamilton wanted to speak with Madison about a topic that he was uncomfortable discussing in a letter knowing that the letter would have been delivered by someon e else. This places Madison and Hamilton together for the purpose of discussing something sensitive which may have been a plan for the Federalist Papers Despite this argument, there is no specific evidence of a detailed plan for a campaign. Publius did, however, plan specific strategies. Hamilton planned on inviting other authors to join him in his effort because he knew that he was not jack -of all things political. The final three men that comprised Publius were specialists in different areas of importan ce to the ratification debates. Jay was well informed in foreign relations. Madison was a highly educated, charismatic man who had gained notoriety in his home state of Virginia. The planned combination of these characteristics in one body of work shows f oresight to the end product. Publius also had another element of the planning phase, a timeline. The men wanted all of the essays published before the New York ratifying convention met in June 1788. Although this was a very loose timeline, the men knew th at there was a deadline that they wanted to work toward. Despite the lack of rigidity in relation to publication dates of the specific Papers the presence of a timeline is undeniable. The implementation part of planning occurred when Publius published th eir essays in newspapers in New York City and beyond. In addition, the publication of two editions of the Federalist Papers in book form was also part of implementing the plan. In publishing the collection of the essays in the first and second editions, Ha milton edited the previously unedited essays and re arranged the order of a few essays. This resulted in different numbering systems between the newspaper versions and what has become referred to as the MLean number ing system. Table 4 7 show s the differen ces between the two numbering systems.
55 Evaluation Publius constantly evaluated their efforts throughout the publication of the Federalist Papers Although there was no evaluation of the preparation phase with the exception of research evaluation because the Papers were published in such hurry, the three men continually sought information on how the states were voting or which way public sentiments were leaning (Maggs, 2007; Adair, 1944). Sentiments in New York were continually discussed in personal letter s throughout the entire process. It is interesting to note that the personal letters indicate that New York was initially in favor of the Constitution when it was first presented to the states for ratification. Letters then indicate that the governor of Ne w York, George Clinton, had managed to sway public sentiment away from the federalist cause of unifying the states into one nation. Hamilton suspected that Clinton was writing anti-federalist essays under the pen name Cato. The Cato letters were in publica tion before the Federalist Papers and the negativity of these letters may have made Hamilton feel as though the Constitutions chances of getting ratified by New York were bleak. As time progressed, Hamiltons letters indicate that the anti -federalist stan ce was loosing ground in New York. As the ratification debates in the states wore on and Madison left for Virginia, Hamilton and Madison continually wrote to each other requesting information on how the deliberations in their states were proceeding. By la te May, Hamilton was requesting that Madison immediately send word on the outcome of the final vote in Virginia so that Hamilton could make aggressive accommodations for a negative vote, or, in the case of a positive result, use Virginias approval as an e xample of the uprightness of the Constitution. The personal letters do not indicate whether or not Publius followed up on the publication status of the essays outside New York. A true testament to the evaluation the men performed is the information they ga thered on the peoples opinion of a bill of rights. As early as September 30, 1787, the men were discussing
56 the peoples desires for amendments to the Constitution in letters to each other. As time progressed it became clearer to Publius that amendments securing personal rights of individuals were needed in order for many states to feel comfortable ratifying the Constitution. Massachusetts set precedent in the states by including proposed amendments with the signed copy of the Constitution that was sent to the central government. Virginia then followed suit by also including a list of proposed amendments with its signed copy of the Constitution. Upon Virginias ratification of the Constitution, Madison honored Hamiltons request and forwarded a copy of the s igned document as well as the states proposed amendments to New York. New Yorks ratifying convention followed Virginias example. This state also included proposed amendments that it wanted presented at the first session of Congress with its signed Const itution. North Carolina and Rhode Island, the last two states to ratify the Constitution, went so far as to conditionally ratify the Constitution based on the inclusion of a bill of rights to the Constitution. Although these two states ratified the Constit ution long after the completion of the Federalist Papers, Publius was aware of the states deliberations and outcomes through the evaluation stage and acted on the evaluation of the progress of ratification in the Stewardship phase. Stewardship After the complete publication of all 85 Federalist Papers, Publius did not continue to exist as a coalition. The three men were known individually. Once the Constitution was ratified and the new government went into effect, delegates to the new Congress began meeti ng in New York City. Once the new Congress was in session, Madison proposed the amendments that, once approved by the Congress, became the first ten amendments to the Constitution: the Bill of Rights. Although Madison did not initially support the idea of a bill of rights, by being involved in the Federalist Papers and being a delegate in the Virginia ratifying convention, he recognized
57 how important a bill of rights was to a large number of people. Compounded with Rhode Island and North Carolinas conditi onal ratification, Madison grew to understand the reasoning behind wanting security for personal rights. Especially important according to Madisons letters to his peers were the issues of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and th e writ of habeas corpus. In sacrificing his personal beliefs in favor of the needs of the people, Madison showed reciprocity for the states support of the Constitution and faith in the framers conceptualization of a republican government. Madison showe d responsibility when he fulfilled the requests of the many states to amend the Constitution by proposing a bill of rights to Congress. Each of these components of stewardship plays into relationship nurturing. By proposing a bill of rights to Congress, Ma dison cultivated the peoples trust in the federal government and strengthened the trust in the social compact between the people and the government. Reporting was difficult in the 1700s mainly because of long travel times between the various state seats and the federal capital. Despite slow communication, the federal government still reported on the proposed amendments to the states and included newly admitted states in the process of ratification of the Bill of Rights. RQ4: Is there any evidence that Pub lius used persuasive approaches in any step of the ROPES process? In the programming phase of the ROPES process, persuasive tactics would have been discussed; the men would want to structure and style their strategies and tactics to be as persuasive as po ssible. There is, however, no clear direct evidence that the men segmented their audiences based on their level of involvement. Publius did use source cues and message cues in their dissemination of messages to their audiences but there is no information a vailable that would suggest that Publius did this to cue heuristics to low involvement audiences or to provide
58 detailed messages to high involvement audiences. There is also no evidence that would indicate that the men decided what concepts, topics or idea s would have created or cued a heuristic for their audiences. The most that can be said of Publius persuasive approach in the Federalist Papers is that they tailored their messages for an audience that would engage in what Meyers Levy and Maheswaran (2004) called hybrid processing. By doing this, Publius ensured that their messages reached both audiences who were systematically processing the messages and people who were peripherally processing it. Evidence of source cues includes the choice of the pen na me Publius and Hamiltons choice to carefully invite collaborators to participate on the Federalist. The detail of the Federalist Papers content and attention to Constitutional information is evidence of tailoring the message to audiences that would system atically process the message. RQ5: Based on the findings of the preceding questions, to what extent can the Federalist Papers be viewed as a seminal American public relations campaign under contemporary public relations process models and modern persuasion theory? Despite the inconclusive evidence in regard to the question of whether the men misrepresented their political beliefs in order to champion a more popular position, the lack of a definite pattern in the publication dates of the Federalist Papers and the state ratification dates and the lack of definitive proof of persuasive tactics, there is strong evidence to support the existence of almost all elements of the ROPES process. Publius engaged in organizational research, opportunity research and co ntinual research of their publics. The group had clear output and impact objectives despite the lack of proof that these objectives were ever committed to a single piece of paper. They clearly engaged in both planning and implementation of the output obje ctives through the separation of topics covered by each man and the publication of the Papers in both newspapers and book form.
59 By editing and rearranging the Papers when they were printed in book form, Hamilton displayed further planning and attention to strategy as did the mens choice to use the pen name, Publius. Publius carried out evaluation throughout the entire process. Although Publius did not exhibit any evidence of evaluating their preparation for the Federalist Papers they continually evaluate d the process and made adjustments by scanning the environment and addressing topics in the Papers that their opponents were addressing. They evaluated the program after all of the Federalist Papers were published and this led to Madisons eventual penning of what was to become the Bill of Rights. S trong evidence shows stewardship from Publius. The understanding of the states need for a bill of rights up through the adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution is exactly this. To conclude, al though some of the components of the ROPES process were not clearly delineated in a written communications plan, there is extensive evidence that Publius conducted a thought out public relations campaign when weighed against contemporary process models.
60 Table 4 1 Federalist Papers publication in Pennsylvania with Pennsylvanias ratification date September 28, 1787 Constitution submitted to the states Philadelphia November 7, 1787 Federalist # 1 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advert iser November 10, 1787 Federalist # 2 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser November 14, 1787 Federalist # 2 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette November 17, 1787 Federalist # 3 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Adve rtiser November 21, 1787 Federalist # 3 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette November 28, 1787 Federalist # 4 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Gazette November 28, 1787 Federalist # 5 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser December 5, 1787 Federalist # 5 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette December 5, 1787 Federalist # 6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette December 12, 1787 Federalist # 7 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette December 12, 1787 Pennsylvania Ratifies the Constitution For 46, Vs 23 December 19, 1787 Federalist # 8 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette December 26, 1787 Federalist # 9 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette January 2, 1788 Federalist # 10 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette January 16, 1788 Federalist # 11 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette January 23, 1788 Federalist # 12 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette January 30, 1788 Federalist # 13 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette February 13, 1788 Federalist # 14 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette February 20, 1788 Federa list # 15 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette
61 Table 4 1 Continued February 27, 1788 Federalist # 16 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette March 5, 1788 Federalist # 17 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette March 12, 1788 Federalist # 18 Philadelphia Pennsyl vania Gazette March 19, 1788 Federalist # 19 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette
62 Table 4 2 Federalist Papers publication in Massachusetts with Massachusettss ratification date September 28, 1787 Constitution submitted to the states Philadelphia November 12, 1787 Federalist # 1 Boston American Herald November 26, 1787 Federalist # 2 Boston American Herald December 3, 1787 federalist # 5 Boston American Herald December 8, 1787 Federalist # 13 Boston Massachusetts Centinel December 10, 1787 Federalist # 3 Boston American Herald December 11, 1787 Federalist # 14 (excerpt) Boston Massachusetts Gazette December 15, 1787 Federalist # 14 (excerpt) Salem Salem Mercury December 17, 1787 Federalist # 14 Boston American Herald February 6, 1788 Massachusetts Ratifies the Constitution For 187, Vs 168
63 Table 4 3. Federalist Papers publication in New Hampshire with New Hampshires ratification date September 28, 1787 Constitution submitted to the states Philadelphia February 15, 1788 Federal ist # 38 Exeter Freeman's Oracle June 21, 1788 New Hampshire Ratifies the Constitution For 57, Vs 47
64 Table 4 4. Federalist Papers publication in Virginia with Virginias ratification date September 28, 1787 Constitution submitted to the states Phila delphia December 12, 1787 Federalist # 1 Richmond Virginia Independent Chronicle December 19, 1787 Federalist # 2 Richmond Virginia Independent Chronicle December 22, 1787 Federalist # 4 Richmond Virginia Gazette and Independent Chronicle Decem ber 26, 1787 Federalist # 3 Richmond Virginia Independent Chronicle December 29, 1787 Federalist # 5 Richmond Virginia Gazette and Independent Chronicle January 9, 1788 Federalist # 6 Norfolk & Portsmouth Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal April 9, 1788 Federalist # 16 Winchester Virginia Gazette June 25, 1788 Virginia Ratifies the Constitution For 89, Vs 79
65 Table 4 5 Federalist Papers publication in New York with New Yorks ratification date September 28, 1787 Constitution submitted to the states Philadelphia October 27, 1787 Federalist # 1 New York New York City October 31, 1787 Federalist # 2 New York New York City November 3, 1787 Federalist # 3 New York New York City November 7, 1787 Federalist # 4 New York New York City Novembe r 10, 1787 Federalist # 5 New York New York City November 13, 1787 Federalist # 1 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald November 14, 1787 Federalist # 6 New York New York City November 15, 1787 Federalist # 1 Albany Albany Gazette Federalist # 15, 1787 Federalist # 7 New York New York City November 20, 1787 Federalist # 2 Lansingburgh & Albany New York City November 20, 1787 Federalist # 8 New York New York City November 21, 1787 Federalist # 9 N ew York New York City November 22, 1787 Federalist # 2 Albany Albany Gazette November 22, 1787 Federalist # 1 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette November 22, 1787 Federalist # 10 New York New York City November 24, 1787 Federalist # 11 New York New Yor k City November 27, 1787 Federalist # 3 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald November 27, 1787 Federalist # 12 New York New York City November 28, 1787 Federalist # 13 New York New York City November 29, 1787 Federalist # 4 Albany Albany Gazette
66 November 29, 1787 Federalist # 2 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette November 30, 1787 Federalist # 14 New York New York City December 1, 1787 Federalist # 15 New York New York City December 4, 1787 Federalist # 4 New York Northern Centinel and Federal Herald December 4, 1787 Federalist # 16 New York New York City December 5, 1787 Federalist # 17 New York New York City December 6, 1787 Federalist # 3 Albany Albany Gazette December 6, 1787 Federalist # 3 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette December 7, 1787 Federalist # 18 New York New York City December 8, 1787 Federalist # 19 New York New York City December 11, 1787 Federalist # 5 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald December 11, 1 787 Federalist # 20 New York New York City December 12, 1787 Federalist # 21 New York New York City December 13, 1787 Federalist # 4 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette December 13, 1787 Federalist # 5 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette December 13, 1787 Federa list # 5 Albany Albany Gazette December 14, 1787 Federalist # 22 New York New York City December 18, 1787 Federalist # 6 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald December 18, 1787 Federalist # 23 New York New York City December 19, 1787 Federalist # 24 New York New York City December 20, 1787 Federalist # 6 Albany Albany Gazette December 20, 1787 Federalist # 6 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette
67 December 20, 1787 Federalist # 7 (pt 1) Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette December 21, 1 787 Federalist # 25 New York New York City December 22, 1787 Federalist # 26 New York New York City December 25, 1787 Federalist # 7 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald December 25, 1787 Federalist # 27 New York New York City December 26, 1787 Federalist # 28 New York New York City December 27, 1787 Federalist # 7 (pt 2) Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette December 27, 1787 Federalist # 8 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette December 28, 1787 Federalist # 30 N ew York New York City January 1, 1788 Federalist # 8 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald January 1, 1788 Federalist # 31 New York New York City January 2, 1788 Federalist # 32 New York New York City January 2, 1788 Federalis t # 33 New York New York City January 3, 1788 Federalist # 8 Albany Albany Gazette January 3, 1788 Federalist # 9 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette January 5, 1788 Federalist # 34 New York New York City January 5, 1788 Federalist # 35 New York New York City January 8, 1788 Federalist # 36 New York New York City January 8, 1788 Federalist # 9 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald January 9, 1788 Federalist # 29 New York New York City January 10, 1788 Federalist # 9 Albany Al bany Gazette January 10, 1788 Federalist # 10 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette
68 January 11, 1788 Federalist # 37 New York New York City January 12, 1788 Federalist # 38 New York New York City January 15, 1788 Federalist # 10 Lansingburgh & Albany Northe rn Centinel and Federal Herald January 16, 1788 Federalist # 15 Poughkeepsie Country Journal January 16, 1788 Federalist # 16 Poughkeepsie Country Journal January 16, 1788 Federalist # 39 New York New York City January 17, 178 8 Federalist # 10 Albany Albany Gazette January 17, 1788 Federalist # 11 Hudson Hudson Weekly Gazette January 18, 1788 Federalist # 40 New York New York City January 19, 1788 Federalist # 41 New York New York City January 22, 1788 Federalist # 17 Poughkeepsie Country Journal January 22, 1788 Federalist # 18 Poughkeepsie Country Journal January 22, 1788 Federalist # 42 New York New York City January 23, 1788 Federalist # 43 New York New York City January 25, 1788 Federalist # 44 New York Ne w York City January 26, 1788 Federalist # 45 New York New York City January 29, 1788 Federalist # 19 Poughkeepsie Country Journal January 29, 1788 Federalist # 20 (pt 1) Poughkeepsie Country Journal January 29, 1788 Federalist # 46 New York New Yor k City January 30 1788 Federalist # 47 New York New York City January 31, 1788 Federalist # 12 Albany Albany Gazette February 2, 1788 Federalist # 48 New York New York City
69 February 2, 1788 Federalist # 49 New York New York City February 2, 1788 Fe deralist # 20 (pt 2) Poughkeepsie Country Journal February 5, 1788 Federalist # 21 Poughkeepsie Country Journal February 5, 1788 Federalist # 50 New York New York City February 6, 1788 Federalist # 51 New York New York City Fe bruary 7, 1788 Federalist # 13 Albany Albany Gazette February 8, 1788 Federalist # 52 New York New York City February 9, 1788 Federalist # 53 New York New York City February 12, 1788 Federalist # 54 New York New York City February 13, 1788 Federal ist # 55 New York New York City February 16, 1788 Federalist # 56 New York New York City February 19, 1788 Federalist # 57 New York New York City February 20, 1788 Federalist # 58 New York New York City February 22, 1788 Federalist # 59 New York N ew York City February 23, 1788 Federalist # 60 New York New York City February 26, 1788 Federalist # 61 New York New York City February 27, 1788 Federalist # 62 New York New York City March 1, 1788 Federalist # 63 New York New York City March 5, 1788 Federalist # 64 New York New York City March 7, 1788 Federalist # 65 New York New York City March 8, 1788 Federalist # 66 New York New York City March 11, 1788 Federalist # 67 New York New York City
70 March 12, 1788 Federalist # 68 New York New York City March 14, 1788 Federalist # 69 New York New York City March 15, 1788 Federalist # 70 New York New York City March 31, 1788 Federalist # 17 Albany New York City March 18, 1788 Federalist # 71 New York New York City Ma rch 19, 1788 Federalist # 72 New York New York City March 21, 1788 Federalist # 73 New York New York City March 22, 1788 MLean's 1st edition New York New York City March 25, 1788 Federalist # 74 New York New York City March 26, 1788 Federalist # 75 New York New York City March 31, 1788 Federalist # 69 Lansingburgh & Albany Northern Centinel and Federal Herald April 1, 1788 Federalist # 76 New York New York City April 2, 1788 Federalist # 77 New York New York City May 28, 1788 MLean's 2nd edition New York New York City May 28, 1788 Federalist # 78 New York New York City May 28, 1788 Federalist # 79 New York New York City May 28, 1788 Federalist # 80 New York New York City May 28, 1788 Federalist # 81 New York New York City May 28 1788 Federalist # 82 New York New York City May 28, 1788 Federalist # 83 New York New York City May 28, 1788 Federalist # 84 New York New York City May 28, 1788 Federalist # # 85 New York New York City
71 July 26, 1788 New York Ratifies the Const itution For 30, Vs 27
72 Table 4 6 Federalist Papers publication in Rhode Island with Rhode Islands ratification date September 28, 1787 Constitution submitted to the states Philadelphia November 22, 1787 Federalist # 1 Providence United States C hronicle November 22, 1787 Federalist # 2 Providence United States Chronicle December 27, 1787 Federalist # 3 Providence United States Chronicle May 29, 1790 Rhode Island Ratifies the Constitution For 34, Vs 32
73 Table 4 7 New York City newspaper -n umbering system compared to MLean editions numbering system Essay number in New York City Newspapers Essay number in M'Lean Editions 1 28 1 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 33 32 34 33 35 34 36 35 29 36 76 37 77 78 85 78 85
74 CHA PTER 5 DISCUSSION The Federalist Papers The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays co authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay and published under the pen name Publius. The Papers were originally published in New York City newspapers between October 27, 1787, and May 28, 1788. The collection of 85 essays explained the new Constitution and described how the new government would function. At the time of the Papers publication, there were seven newspapers in New York City (Crane, 1 964; Maggs, 2007). Although some or all of the Federalist Papers appeared in any of these newspapers, there is a large degree of disagreement among scholars as to which of the seven newspapers contained which essays (Crane, 1964; Lloyd, 2008; Maggs, 2007). Crane (1964) reveals that the Federalist Papers were published in four of the newspapers in New York City, of which three, the New York Packet, the Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal, strongly supported Publius cause, while Lloyd (2008) states that the Papers appeared in five of the New York newspapers (Conley & Kaminski, 1988). Lloyd (2008) did not specify the political inclinations of any of the newspapers. Cooke (1961) states that the Federalist Papers appeared in six of the seven newspapers: the Independent Journal, the New York Packet, The General Advertiser, the Daily Advertiser, The New York Journal, and the Daily Patriotic Register but leaves the seventh newspaper unknown. Despite this uncertainty, many scholars agree that the first ess ay appeared in the Independent Journal (Crane, 1964; Maggs, 2007). The Independent Journal was published by the MLean Brothers publishing house, the same publishing house that later published collections of the Federalist Papers in two editions (Crane, 1964; Lloyd, 2008; Maggs, 2007). Initially, the Papers were published in New York City newspapers but on March 22, 1788, the
75 MLean brothers published a collection of the first 35 essays in a book titled The Federalist: A Collection of Essays Written in F avour of the New Constitution, As Agreed Upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787 (Maggs, 2007). On May 28, 1788, the MLean brothers published a second edition of the collection that included essays 36 through 77 (Madison et al, 1987). These ess ays were previously published in the New York City papers, and included previously unpublished essays numbered 78 to 85 (Maggs, 2007). Essays 78 through 85 were published in newspapers after the release of MLeans second edition (Maggs, 2007). Due to so me editorial revisions that Hamilton made in preparation for the publication of MLeans first edition, the numbering system of the Federalist Papers is different in the MLean volumes than in newspapers (Maggs, 2007). Many scholars today use the MLean e dition and numbering system to avoid confusion (Maggs, 2007). Circulation Determining the publication of the essays outside of New York City is a little tedious. It has been made clear through Hamilton and Madisons personal letters that the men sent som e copies of the essays to friends such as George Washington but this leaves no indication of whether the Papers were subsequently published in newspapers. Cranes (1964) study of the reprinting of the Federalist outside New York City answers this question. In studying all of the existing 89 newspapers and three magazines published in the United States between October 27, 1787, and August 31, 1788, Crane established that 12 newspapers and one magazine outside New York State published the essays (1964). Fou r papers in Massachusetts and Virginia printed some of the Federalist Papers two newspapers in Pennsylvania printed some and one paper in each New Hampshire and Rhode Island printed some of the Federalist (Crane, 1964) In New York State outside New Yor k City, four papers and one magazine reprinted the Federalist (Crane, 1964). Crane (1964) draws the
76 conclusion that it seems clear, then that Publius did not reach an audience of any significant size in 17871788 (p. 591). Maggs (2007) agrees with the c onclusion that Crane (1964) draws. Maggs (2007) concedes that the exact circulation of these newspapers is unknown but estimates the average circulation of these papers to be between 600 to 700 copies per issue. Maggs (2007) establishes that circulation do es not accurately indicate readership. Shared copies cannot truly ever be accounted for and therefore the number of people who read the Federalist remains unknown (Maggs, 2007). Despite the uncertainty of readership, Maggs (2007) agrees with Cranes (1964) assertion that the readership of the Papers was insignificant and asserts that the Papers did not reach a significant number of people in the United States. Publication D etails Hamilton knew that the new Constitution faced considerable opposition in N ew York State. Immediately following the Constitutional Convention, New York City newspapers had begun publishing essays in opposition to the proposed Constitution (Maggs, 2007). The opposition in New York was so strong that some of the New York delegates to the Constitutional Convention had left Philadelphia before the convention had concluded. They felt that the convention had strayed from the stated goals by framing a new Constitution instead of amending the Articles of Confederation. To combat the new C onstitutions opposition, Hamilton penned several persuasive essays in support of the new Constitution under the pen name Caesar (Conley & Kaminski, 1988). Then, in the fall of 1787, Hamilton decided to organize a cooperative enterprise (Adair, 1944, p 244) for the purpose of writing essays to vindicate & recommend the new Constitution to the State of [New York] whose ratification of the instrument, was doubtful, as well as important (Maggs, 2007). There could be many reasons other than the reason Ha milton articulated in a letter dated November 1787 for the need for a cooperative effort. On one hand, Hamilton had a busy law practice in New York City. On the
77 other, Hamilton had a questionable reputation in New York society and may have wanted a coopera tive effort that included reputable, intelligent and well -liked men to increase the effectiveness of the essays. Regardless of the reason, Hamilton sought out to create a group of men to aid in penning the essays. He originally asked John Jay to join him and subsequently invited Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania to participate, as well as William Duer, a New York City lawyer (Adair, 1944). Gouverneur Morris declined to participate and Duer wrote a few essays that were, for unknown reasons, not ever included in the Federalist Papers but were published under the name Philo-Publius meaning friend of Publius (Adair, 1944; Maggs, 2007). In November of 1787, James Madison joined Hamiltons efforts and thus completed Publius (Adair, 1944). The month after the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification, Hamilton began writing and publishing the Federalist Papers There was no predetermined number but the result was 85 essays that sought to explain the new Constitution and refute points made by those who opposed ratification. New York City was, at the time, the seat of the central government. Jay felt that there could be no union if New York did not join and particular weight was placed on Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia as well. Adair (1 944) asserts that Hamilton had a clear plan in mind when he published Federalist 1 which Adair calls a prospectus of the major topics to be discussed (p. 243). Adair (1944) also claims that Hamilton used his notes from the Constitutional Convention as w ell as material he had prepared for speeches at the convention as an outline for the Federalist Papers Additionally, Adair (1944) claims that Hamilton passed on his notes to Madison when he enlisted him in order to structure the essays and provide points of argument that were intended to be covered. Despite Adairs (1944) assertions, there was no evidence of this in the essays or the
78 correspondence analyzed. Additionally, later in life Hamilton conceded that the Papers were hurriedly written and in more than one case, were being completed as the type was being set for the essay to be printed (Maggs, 2007). It is interesting to notice however that Hamilton did author essays for the Federalist that were on the same topics as the speeches he made at the Const itutional Convention. Interestingly, Jay covered topics dealing with foreign commerce and Madison was left to discuss the historical weaknesses of ancient and modern confederations (Adair, 1944, p. 246) It seems each of the men addressed topics of his expertise to facilitate a functional division of labor, by which their special knowledge and particular skills would supplement Hamiltons own facile pen and fortify Publius argumentative appeal (Adair, 1944, p. 246). The segmentation of the Federalist Papers by author is as follows: Hamilton wrote Federalist 1, 6 -9, 11-13, 15-17, 21-36, 59-61, 65-85; Madison wrote Federalist 10, 14, 18-20, 37-58, 62-63; and Jay wrote Federalist 2 -5, 64. Jay penned only four of the essays due to a prolonged illness. Per sonal Correspondence Congressional records and personal collections alike were consulted, in order to comprise the most complete collection of correspondence between the men for the period beginning January 1, 1787, and ending July 31, 1788. Despite the v ast amount of letters that were located, only a handful was related to the Constitution or the Federalist Papers In total, 117 letters were included. Hamilton, Madison and Jay sent 19, 84 and 6 respectively. George Washington sent three: Two of these wer e to John Jay and one was to Hamilton. Two more of the 117 were from William Bingham, a delegate to Congress from Pennsylvania, to John Jay (Bingham, 1995). Edward Carrington, the first marshal of the United States, sent one letter to James Madison; Willia m Grayson, a Virginia delegate and Senator under the new Constitution, sent one to James
79 Madison (Grayson, 2008). Rufus King, who was a Massachusetts delegate and later Senator of New York, sent one letter to James Madison as well (King, 2008). Of the 19 l etters Hamilton sent, he sent 13 to James Madison and two to George Washington, who was President of the Constitutional Convention and would later become the first President under the new Constitution. Hamilton also sent one letter each to Gouverneur Morri s of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Rush, a delegate to the Continental Congress and physician from Pennsylvania, John Sullivan, who was the Governor of New Hampshire, and Philip Schuyler, who was Hamiltons father in law (Rush, 1999, Bastedo, 2007; Schuyler, 2000.) Of the 84 letters that Madison sent, he sent 25 letters to George Washington, 17 to Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, 11 to Thomas Jefferson who was during this time Minister to France and later became President, Vice President and Secretary of St ate. Madison also sent six each to Hamilton and Edmund Pendleton, who would become the president of the Virginia ratifying convention, five to James Madison Sr. who was Madisons father, four to Tench Coxe who wrote several essays in defense of the new Constitution, three each to James Monroe, an anti -federal delegate in the Virginia ratifying convention, and Archibald Stuart, a lawyer and judge who was a close friend of Thomas Jef ferson (Related Information, 1999.; Coxe, 2001; Monroe, 2007; Stuart, 2007). Madison sent two letters to Ambrose Madison, his younger brother, and one each to Rufus King and William Short, private secretary to Thomas Jefferson while Jefferson was Minister to France (Bowman, 1997). Jay sent three letters to George Washington, two to John Adams, who was, at the time, Minister to Great Britain and one to his wife, Sally Jay (Adams, 2007). Table 5.1 provides a complete timeline of the mens personal correspondence.
80 Discussion of Results The purpose of this study was to ascertain to what extent the Federalist Papers could be viewed as a seminal American Public relations campaign as measured by contemporary public relat ions process models. R esearch question 1 sought to determine whether any of the men misrepresented their personal politica l beliefs for the purpose of championing a more popular opinion that would more fruitfully promote the cause of ratifying the Constitution. The content of the essays and the letters made analysis difficult. Many of the essays were incorrect, contradictory or redundant. Sometimes essays were combinations of the three errors (Maggs, 2007). To compound the task of determining if any of the three men purposely misrepresented their own political ideals in order to construct a more persuasive argument for the rat ification of the government, many of the men simply changed their minds as was the case of Madison on a bill of rights. Madisons correspondence indicates that he had no solid opinion on the inclusion of a bill of rights. Some letters only days apart illus trate totally different opinions on the topic. One of the few solid opinions that can be said of the three men is that they supported the adoption of the Constitution and the establishment of the Union. Another thing that can be agreed upon is that Rasmus sen polls were not available to conduct extensive research on the sentiments of the people of New York in order to provide Publius with a complete and accurate picture of the political landscape. A lot of what Publius thought was popular opinion came from their interaction with landed and educated men. So the opinions they surveyed, whether in support or opposition to the Constitution, were those of people in similar socioeconomic standing with very few exceptions. Because of this, Publius did not have a c omplete conceptualization of what arguments would be most readily accepted by the people and could not have accurately adjusted their positions on topics to appease the masses. It is important to note here that while this is true, the
81 masses elected repres entatives in their respective states to vote on the Constitution for them. Regardless of this fact, there is simply no way, short of having a personal conversation with the Publius, to be able to definitely determine whether or not they misrepresented thei r political beliefs for a purpose. Research question 2 sought to determine if there was a meaningful timeline of each states ratification and the publication of the Federalist Papers The only pattern that was evident between the publication dates of the Federalist Papers and the ratification dates was, that in five out of the six states that the Papers had been published in, all the Papers were published before the state government approved the Constitution. Because the only way that Publius sent the ess ays out for publication outside of New York City was through letters to friends, they had no control over the publication dates of those essays. It is possible, and it seems likely, that Hamilton and Madison were simply grateful that the essays could be pu blished. The only state in which Publius had some sense of control over publication dates was New York and truly only in New York City. It seems apparent that the only timeline that Publius had in place was to get the essays out before the New York delega tes met to debate the ratification of the Constitution. There is no apparent plan that can be deciphered from the information available that Publius divided the topics beforehand and wrote according to a more specific timeline than the one mentioned above. Some scholars (Adair, 1944) disagree and insist that Hamilton divided the topics among the men before he set about publishing the essays. Despite these claims there is no evidence in the primary documents included for analysis that would indicate this. S ome of the peculiar details about the publication of the Papers unrelated to the publication dates involved the states that had published very few essays. It would be interesting to know if there was a reason why Federalist 38 was the sole essay published in New
82 Hampshire. The essay discusses the difficulties that the convention faced and refutes the objections made by opponents of the Constitution. Perhaps this topic was seen as being the most important or most persuasive topic in that state or perhaps the essay addresses points that were heavily debated in that state. Research question 3 attempted to establish whether or not any elements of the ROPES process were present in the Federalist Papers. Although the Federalist Papers themselves did not reveal a campaign plan or any elements of the ROPES process other than research of Publius publics, the personal letters of the three men did provide a plethora of evidentiary support that showed that the basic elements of a public relations campaign were present. Of the ROPES process steps, research of organizations, opportunities and publics, delineation of output and impact objectives, program implementation, evaluation of programming and stewardship were especially evident. Research question 4 sought to determ ine specific persuasive approaches Publius may have used during the ROPES process. Despite the overwhelming evidence that supported the presence of the ROPES process, persuasive elements or tactics were harder to identify. Persuasive elements were most cl early identified in the programming phase of the ROPES process. The most purposeful choice made by the authors that indicates that they were making decisions with a mind to what elements would make their argument more persuasive was their choice of a pen name Publius. Publius was the first name of Publius Valerius Publicola, an important supporter of the Roman Republic (Maggs, 2007, p. 811). Although writing under a pseudonym was not unusual at the time, the choice of pseudonym reflects on the message that the men were trying to convey. Their choice of pseudonym would have immediately cued some of their readers into a very basic
83 idea of what Publius was defending. In other words, for readers of a certain educational level and of certain experiences, the pseudonym would have cued a heuristic. Adair (1944) believes that all three of the men decided to use the pseudonym by consensus and that they felt that this name augmented the persuasive effect of the Papers due to the reputation of the authors. Although Jay had established a sound reputation in New York, Hamilton was from a dubious background and Madison, as a citizen of Virginia, would have been seen as an alien and would have lost persuasive effect and credibility because of his status as an outsider. As hard as it may be to confirm that Publius purposely used specific examples as a contrivance to persuade readers of the utility of the union, it is difficult to disregard the amount of attention given to classical examples of ancient Greek city -states, ancient Rome and rhetoric from popular political philosophers like Montesquieu and Locke, of whom both influenced the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence. Many of the educated men in the United States would have been familiar with the classical per iod and modern political theorists (Hampshire Monk, 1992). Successful integration of these into the essays would have likely increased the persuasiveness of the Papers Additionally, the powerful language used in the Federalist Papers that refer to indep endence, freedom, virtue and the evils of despotic rule and tyranny would have been as provocative then as they are today. The Federalist Papers are rife with such language. Publius also used the powerful language of Queen Anne, the first monarch to reign over England and Scotland as a united state. In a letter written in 1706, she addressed English and Scottish unity with the following words that were borrowed in 1787 by Jay writing as Publius: An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of l asting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island being joined in affection and free
84 from all apprehensions of different interests, will be enabled to resist all its enemies (Madison et al., 1987, p.101). Queen Annes words would have spoke directly to the people and increased the weight of Publius ar gument in favor of firmly united states. All of these factors contribute to the persuasiveness of the Federalist Papers, although there is no clear proof that Publius purposely used these persuasive strategies in penning the Papers But these conclusions c an easily be inferred and is requisite in any discussion of the Federalist Papers persuasive impact. The fifth and final research question attempted to tie all of the preceding research questions together to determine to what extent the Federalist Paper s can be viewed as a seminal American public relations campaign under contemporary public relations process models and modern persuasion theory. Although there is evidence that the members of Publius engaged in every step of the ROPES process, there is not evidence that the Federalist Papers alone were a seminal American public relations campaign. There is enough evidence to conclude that the Federalist Papers were a strong and critical component of a public relations campaign. Another issue that is problem atic is that the Federalist Papers were mainly intended for audiences in New York. Although the essays did appear in other states and it is not beyond understanding that people outside of New York read the essays, the Federalist Papers were not directed at all 13 states and cannot therefore be referred to as a nationwide American public relations campaign. Rather, the Federalist Papers can be discussed as a tactic, or 85 tactics, specifically targeted to New York audiences that reached unanticipated audienc es and may have also played a role in the decision making in those states that they reached. No conclusion can be made as to the effectiveness of the Papers in any of the states based on this research. Evidence show s that the efforts of Hamilton, Madison and Jay went beyond the Federalists publication in New York and indeed extended to the far reaches of the confederacy.
85 The men had hoped and planned to coordinate efforts with supporters of the Constitution in other states to achieve the end result of suc cessful ratification of the Constitution and the establishment of a United America. For these reasons the Federalist Papers can be viewed as a key component in a seminal American public relations campaign but nothing more. Implications and Limitations T he study of these documents is hoped to contribute to a better understanding of the role of the Federalist Papers in the history of public relations can be gained discrepancies mentioned previously regarding the uncertainty with which public relations au thors categorize and describe the Federalist Papers role in scholarly work can now be refined. The Federalist Papers were a key tactic in a seminal American public relations campaign. They were by no means the only tactic but perhaps they are the most not orious. Their notoriety may be due to their continued use in attempts to understand the Constitution or perhaps because of the heights of political achievement their authors reached. Limitations of the study result from the incompleteness of the personal correspondence between the men. An impressive number of Madisons letters had been preserved and are now available for study. Hamilton, strikingly, had a much smaller number of personal letters available. Cooke (1960) attributes the difficulty of locating many remaining personal letters belonging to Hamilton to his habit of discarding his letters. There is no explanation for Jays diminutive collection of available letters except perhaps the wellknown fact that Jay was continuously ill during the time per iod that the Federalist Papers were published. Additionally, this research was not able to shed light on reasons certain essays were published in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and in Poughkeepsie, New York. The essays published in these area s seem to be chosen at random but perhaps there is an
86 enlightening reason for the choice of essays. Even more so, it would be incredibly revealing to look at all of the political essays published in newspapers in the timeline around the ratification debate s in order to see of there is a connection or relationship between the topics discussed. This study provides insight into early American Political campaigns. The role that heuristics played in informational campaign s was effective and widely used at the t ime of the Constitutions ratification. It would be interesting to research to what extent this approach has been used in contemporary political campaigns. Additionally, this research revealed a flaw in public relations campaigns: inadequate research and a lack of definite planning. Perhaps Publius may have been more effective had they conduct ed extensive research and develop a clear and precise communications plan before beginning a campaign. Contemporary political campaigns can benefit from the clearly in sufficient job carried out in these areas The revelation that public relations in America has dated back to the founding of the country increases the importance of this field to political development in America and centralizes public relations role in th e American democratic process. While this research answered questions previously left unanswered in the field, there are many remaining. This research provides a methodological framework through which to analyze historical events for their contribution to the field of public relations as it provides a systematic tool through which to gauge public relations tactics, campaigns and foundations. The role of public relations in the events that led up to the Declaration of Independence can now be analyzed within an established framework that applies the ROP ES process to historical events. Analysis of other historical events thought to be central to the history of public relations can also be examined through this methodological lens and the breadth of American pub lic relations history can be fully fleshed out.
87 Table 5 1 Personal Correspondence Addressor Addressee Date Location James Madison Edmund Randolph February 15, 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph February 18, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington February 21, 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Pendleton February 24, 1787 New York James Madison James Madison Sr. February 25, 1787 New York James Madison James Monroe February 25, 1787 New York James Madison James Monroe February 25, 17 87 New York James Madison Edmund Pendleton March 3, 1788 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph March 3, 1788 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph March 11, 1787 New York Rufus King James Madison & William Grayson March 11, 1787 No location James Madison George Washington March 18, 1787 New York James Madison Thomas Jefferson March 19, 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph March 19, 1787 New York James Madison James Madison Sr. April 1, 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph April 2 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph April 8, 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph April 15, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington April 16, 1787 No location James Madison Edmund Pendleton April 22, 1787 New York James Madiso n Edmund Randolph April 22, 1787 New York James Madison Thomas Jefferson April 23, 1787 New York William Grayson James Madison May 24, 1787 No location James Madison James Monroe June 10, 1787 Philadelphia Alexander Hamilton George Washington July 3, 1787 New York George Washington Alexander Hamilton July 10, 1787 Philadelphia James Madison Thomas Jefferson July 18, 1787 Philadelphia William Bingham John Jay July 19, 1787 New York James Madison James Madison Sr. August 12, 1787 Philadelphia James Madison Thomas Jefferson September 6, 1787 Philadelphia James Madison Edmund Pendleton September 20, 1787 Philadelphia Edward Carrington James Madison September 23, 1787 New York James Madison James Madison Sr. September 30, 1787 New York James Madis on George Washington September 30, 1787 New York John Jay John Adams October 3, 1787 Office of Foreign A ffairs James Madison Edmund Randolph October 7, 1787 New York James Madison Ambrose Madison October 11, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington October 14, 1787 New York John Jay John Adams October 16, 1787 Office of Foreign A ffairs James Madison Thomas Jefferson October 17, 1788 No location James Madison Edmund Randolph October 21, 1787 New York James Madison Thomas Jefferson October 24, 1 787 New York James Madison William Short October 24, 1787 New York James Madison Tench Coxe October 26, 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Pendleton October 28, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington October 28, 1787 New York
88 Table 5 1 Contin ued Addressor Addressee Date Location Alexander Hamilton George Washington October 30, 1787 New York James Madison Archibald Stuart October 30, 1787 New York James Madison Ambrose Madison November 8, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington Nove mber 18, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington November 20, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton Benjamin Rush November 21, 1787 New York James Madison Archibald Stuart November 25, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington November 30, 1787 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph December 2, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington December 7, 1787 New York James Madison Thomas Jefferson December 9, 1787 New York James Madison Archibald Stuart December 14, 1787 New York James Madiso n George Washington December 14,1787 New York James Madison Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington December 20, 1787 New York James Madison George Washington December 26, 1787 New York James Madison Tench Coxe Ja nuary 3, 1788 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph January 10, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington January 14, 1788 New York George Washington John Jay January 20, 1788 Mount Vernon James Madison Tench Coxe January 20, 1788 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph January 20, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington January 20, 1788 New York James Madison Rufus King January 23, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington January 25, 1788 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph Janu ary 27, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington January 28, 1788 New York William Bingham John Jay January 29, 1788 Philadelphia James Madison Tench Coxe January 30, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington February 1, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington February 3, 1788 New York John Jay George Washington February 3, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington February 8, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton Philip Schuyler February 9, 1788 New York James Madison George Washing ton February 11, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington February 15, 1788 New York James Madison Thomas Jefferson February 19, 1788 New York James Madison George Washington February 20, 1788 New York James Madison Edmund Pendleton February 21, 1 788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison April 3, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison May 11, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison May 19, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton Governeur Morris May 19, 1788 New York John Jay Georg e Washington May 29, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton John Sullivan June 6, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison June 8, 1788 New York George Washington John Jay June 8, 1788 Mount Vernon
89 Table 5 1 Continued Addressor Addressee Date Lo cation James Madison Alexander Hamilton June 9, 1788 Richmond, VA James Madison Alexander Hamilton June 16, 1788 Richmond, VA Alexander Hamilton James Madison June 19, 1788 Poughkeepsie, NY Alexander Hamilton James Madison June 21, 1788 Poughkeepsi e, NY James Madison Alexander Hamilton June 22, 1788 Richmond, VA Alexander Hamilton James Madison June 25, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison June 27, 1788 Poughkeepsie, NY James Madison Alexander Hamilton June 27, 1788 Richmond, VA James Madison George Washington June 27, 1788 Richmond, VA James Madison Alexander Hamilton June 30, 1788 Richmond, VA John Jay George Washington June 30, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison July 2, 1788 Poughkeepsie, NY John Jay Sally Jay July 5, 1788 Poughkeepsie, NY Alexander Hamilton James Madison July 8, 1788 New York James Madison Edmund Randolph July 16, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison July 19, 1788 Poughkeepsie, NY James Madison Alexander Hamilton July 20, 1788 Ne w York James Madison George Washingto n July 21, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison July 22, 1788 Poughkeepsie, NY James Madison Edmund Randolph July 22, 1788 New York James Madison Thomas Jefferson July 24, 1788 New York James Madison Jame s Madison Sr July 27, 1788 New York Alexander Hamilton James Madison Undated New York
90 APPENDIX A CODE DIAGRAM
91 F. Publication Location City: State: K. BOR P. Stewardship 1. Reciprocity 2. Responsibility 3. Reporting 4. Relationship nurturing Legend In support Against Subject Matter ROPES
92 APPENDIX B CODE BOOK FOR THE FE DERALIST PAPERS Code Book for the Federalist Papers Source: Documents were divided into two categori es the first of which is the Federalist Papers The full population of the 85 Federalist Papers were included in this analysis. The Papers were published as periodicals in New York City newspapers beginning on October 27, 1787, and ending on May 28, 1788. Some of these Papers were published outside of New York City as late as March 31, 1788. Due to the sheer age of the documents, compounded with their original medium, very few Federalist Papers are currently available in their original form. Fortunately, t his analysis did not require the original manuscripts and so Penguin Classics 1987 reprint of the MLean edition of the Federalist Papers edited by Isaac Kramnick will serve as close proxy for the original documents. The second category of documents cons ists of letters of correspondence between Publius and their peers. Purposive sampling was conducted in order to eliminate correspondence between Publius that did not pertain to the new Constitution or Publius ideals and intentions. Letters written by the men on behalf of a large group or organization has been excluded. For example, Madison signed some letters that were written on behalf of many Virginia delegates. These letters embody the perspectives of many men and did not accurately reflect on Madisons personal convictions. In addition to this, the majority of these letters were in regard to official business between the central government and the state legislature and did not involve any matters of concern for this research. The total of relevant perso nal letters included for analysis is 117. Including the 85 Federalist Papers the total number of documents included for analysis was 202. Date range: January 1, 1787 July 31, 1788
93 Every document in the sample received a unique identification number that consisted of the date in this format: monthdayyear where available. As some of the documents were from somewhat obscure origins, the authors initials have been added to this identification number. In place of missing information 00 was to be added. For e xample, a document from James Madison that was dated March 1788 with the exact date remaining unknown would have the following identifier: 03001788JM. If more than one document in the sample was published on the same date by the same author, the initials of the author were followed by a, b, c and so on in alphabetical order. All of the categories on the data protocol were included in order to elicit the original intentions of Publius. Additional categories were (process model categories) in order to determine whether or not, Publius engaged in any contemporary public relations activities. As this analysis was open ended and unique in nature, not all of the categories were filled in every document. However, the protocol used in this research provides a syst ematic form for categorizing available information and guided the coder in her or his analysis. The protocol directed the coder to look for relevant information that was explicitly stated or more subtly implied. The protocol was in the form of a code dia gram so that data collection was easy to conduct. This format provided an easy to use code sheet for the documents in the data sample. Related information as well as direct quotes and extended summaries, where needed, are included in the appropriate sections of the protocol. To facilitate easy use, the code diagram was organized by alphabetical symbols, then by number, and finally by small alphabetical symbols. For example, if a document addressed the advantages of foreign relations under the new Constitution specifically in the process of waging war, the information would be in Box J under heading number 1.
94 Also, as indicated on the legend on the code diagram, perspectives given in a document are color -coded for supporting a specific topic or opposing it. For example, if a document indicated that the author was opposed to the addition of a bill of rights to the new Constitution before ratification, the bulleted idea on the code diagram would be highlighted in blue ink. Color -coding the different ideas pro vided an easy way to immediately illustrate one documents portrayal of many distinct perspectives. The plus and minus signs on the code diagram indicate that the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the topics at hand is of primary importance Two coders were employed to code the documents. Each coder was trained on how to use the protocol. Holstis reliability formula was used to determine intercoder reliability. Intercoder reliability as reported using Holstis formula was approximately 90 %. A The author of the document was established. The authors of the personal letters are the sender of the document, not the recipient. The viable options here included Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in addition to any of their peers from which these three men received letters regarding the Federalist Papers The authors of the Federalist Papers, while collectively known as Publius, are broken down into individual authors. B. The nature of the document varied between being the Federalist Pape rs to being personal letters. There were no other options under this heading. The nature of the document is important because it will be important to see whose opinions are expressed. In the personal letters, it is possible that peoples opinions other than those of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were discussed. For the purposes of coding, the Federalist Papers express only the collective ideals of Publius. C. It was important to clarify the addressee or the recipient of the personal lett ers in order to place weight on the perspectives presented. The status of the addressee was determined as it was predicted that this might be of some value to the discussion of the results. D The year of the publication was established in order to place the documents in chronological order to establish the significance of the document to the ratification of the Constitution E The month and day of the documents sending or publication was also established for purposes of chronologically establishing the relati onship of the document to the other documents in the sample and also for the purposes of placing the documents in a historical timeline.
95 F The publication location was significant in order to relate the documents to any possible tactics or strategies that P ublius had planned. It is also important to see the dates that the individual states ratified the Constitution and the relationship of this date to any available documents. The square boxes, G through K, on the code diagram indicate the subject matter of the document. G Opinions expressed is an important category to the analysis of the Federalist Papers because in the cases of the letters, many peoples ideas may be expressed. Letters to and from Publius and their peers could possibly reflect the ideas of e ither the sender or the receiver of the message or possibly a third party. In order to differentiate between these possibilities, it is necessary to assess the content of the letters by each persons ideology. The person whose ideas are expressed must sepa rate the content of the letters. It is most likely that only or two peoples ideas concerning the new Constitution will be expressed in each letter. For the purpose of clarity, a new code diagram was filled out for each persons perspective. This means t hat there may be multiple code diagrams filled out for each letter. This is unique to the letters in the data sample. The Federalist Papers themselves only portray the perspective of Publius and therefore this anomaly will not be encountered here. H Federal Government is a topic that was addressed in a large number of the documents in the data sample. This subject matter category was broken down into two other sub categories: Revenue and Structure. Structure was further separated into the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government. The legislative branch was divided into bicameral and unicameral houses. To reiterate, these topics may be color coded to indicate the documents support of a unicameral house and/or the opposition t o a bicameral house. I. State government is another possible subject matter category that will likely be addressed in a good majority of the documents. This topic was also divided further into discussion of strong state governments or weak state governments. J Another category under the subject matter heading is foreign relations. This topic was divided into discussion of war and international trade. Again pinpointing the advantages and disadvantages of each is ideal. K Any discussion of the possible addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution is addressed in this subject heading. Because a bill of rights was a nascent idea at this point in the discussion of the ratification of the Constitution, there is no division of topics under this heading. The circl es, L through P, on the code diagram cover the ROPES process. Information was included in these fields where it was apparent through the documents that Publius engaged in these steps of the public relations process. Information was included where availabl e.
96 L Research (R in ROPES) covers three areas in the ROPES process: organization, opportunity and publics. Research is the most important step in public relations. 1 Organizational research familiarizes the public relations practitioner with the organizations history, finances, personnel, products and services, and past public relations efforts (Kelly, 2001, p.286). Most relevant among these organizational elements is the organizations history that in this case is a shared community history. This ties cl osely to past public relations efforts. Samuel Adams attempts at what is considered by some public relations scholars to be public relations tactics (Cutlip, et al., 2006) qualifies as past public relations efforts. 2 Opportunity research looks into the de gree of agreement between the public relations perceptions of opportunities, problems or issues and those of the publics. Kelly (2001) indicates that any disparities in perception must be addressed before proceeding in the ROPES process. 3 Research into var ious publics is necessary because target publics need to be segmented based on level of involvement, problem definition and constraint recognition. It is quite possible that different tactics will be more effective on certain publics than on others. Kelly (2001) distinguishes publics into four groups: active publics, aware publics, latent publics and nonpublics. M Objectives are based on the research step of the ROPES process. In this step objectives are specific statements that express results as measurab le outcomes (Kelly, 2001, p.287). There are two types of objectives: output objectives and input objectives. 1 Output objectives are intended objectives that are desired as specific outputs of the programming phase by public relations practitioners. 2 Impa ct objectives are specific programming outcomes that are seen as desired effects of public relations efforts on the audiences. N Programming is divided into two parts: planning and implementation. 1 Planning usually is embodied by a written communications p lan. The plan usually includes the results of the research step of the ROPES process as well as the clarification of specific objectives. An outline of matched techniques to each objective is also typical of planning. Time lines and budgets are typical of the planning phase as well. 2 Implementation is the process of implementing the techniques delineated in the planning phase. O Evaluation comes after the implementation of specific activities and tactics. The programming phase is evaluated by the degree to which it accomplished the set objectives (Kelly, 2001, p. 288).
97 1 Preparation evaluation tests messages and techniques to determine whether they were appropriate for the objectives and audiences involved in the public relations campaign. 2 Process evaluati on monitors progress of the programming process and allows for adjustments to be made along the way where appropriate. 3 Upon completion of the implementation of the program, program evaluation is conducted. This evaluation is conducted by comparing the res ults attained by programming to the desired results. P Stewardship 1 Reciprocity is a process by which the organization, or in this case, Publius, demonstrates their gratification to their publics for the publics support by beliefs and behaviors. 2 Responsib ility is demonstrated when the organization (Publius) continues to act in a socially responsible manner to the publics that supported the organization during the public relations campaign. 3 Reporting keeps publics informed about the campaign process. It al so encourages accountability in public relations actions. Additionally, Reporting ensures that the organization continually reinforces public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of their performance (Kelly, 2001, p. 285). 4 Relationship nurturing is important to an organization in order for the organization to retain the continual support of its publics even after the public relations campaign is implemented. Relationship nurturing is a continual process and can put the organization in a beneficia l position with its publics for future campaigns and public relations efforts. Q This field is included in the code diagram in case there are any additional topics discussed in the documents that were not perceived as being important in the pre -test.
98 LIS T OF REFERENCES Adair D. (1944) The authorship of the disputed federalist papers: Part II. The William and Mary Quarterly, 1, 235264. Adams (2007) John Adams. The White House: George W. Bush. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://www.whi tehouse.gov/history/presidents/ja2.html. Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. Ashbrook (n.d.). Ratification of the Constitution. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University. Retrieved Feb ruary 11, 2008 from http://www.ashbrook.org/constitution/ratification.html. Barney, R. D., & Black, J. (1994). Ethics and professional persuasive communications. Public Relations Review, 20 (3), 233248. doi:10.1016/03638111(94)900388. Bastedo, R. (2007). Publications Likenesses of New Hampshire War Heroes & Personages in the Collections of the New Hampshire State House & State Library. New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources. Concord, N.H.: Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://www.nh.gov/nhdhr/publications/warheroes/sullivanj.html. Bates, D. (2006). "Mini -me" history: A public relations from the dawn of civilization. Gainesville, Fl.: Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved on May 1. 2008 from http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/m ini_me_history/ Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences London: Allyn and Bacon. Bernays, E. L. (1923). Crystallizing public opinion. Boni & Liveright: New York. Bernays, E. L. (1952). Chapter 5: American public relations from 1600 to 1800. Public relations (pp. 27 35). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Bingham (1995). William Bingham. Penn in the 18th Century. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/bingham_wm.html Bohner, G., Rank, S., Reinhard, M. A., Einwiller, S., & Erb, H. B. (1998). Motivational determinants of systematic processing: Expectancy moderates effects of desired confidence on processing effort. European Journal of Soci al Psychology, 28, 185206. Botan, C. H., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Public relations in a new age. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 1 8). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
99 Bowman, R. (1997). Thomas Jefferson and William Short. Research and collections: Jefferson Monticello. Charlottesville, V a : Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://www.monticello.org/reports/people/short.html. Boyer, P. S., Clark, C. E., Kett, J. F., Salisbury, N., Sitkoff, H., & Woloch, N. (1996). The enduring visi on; A history of the American people (3rd ed.). Lexington, Ma: Heath and Company. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752766. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 4 60473. Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44 49. Conley, P.T & Kaminski, J.P. (1988). The constitution and the states. Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House. Cooke, J. E. (1961). The Federalist. Middletown, C t : Wesleyan University Press. Coxe ( 2001). Tench Coxe: 17551824. Asheville, N.C.: University of North Carolina Asheville. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://toto.lib.unca.edu/findingaids/mss/speculation_lands/bio graphies/tench_coxe.htm. Crane, E. F. (1964). Publius in the provinces: Where was The Federalist reprinted outside New York City? The William and Mary Quarterly, 21, 589592. Cutlip, S. M. (1994). Part. I: Seedbed years of counseling, 19001919. The unsee n power: Public relations, a history (pp. 1 9). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Cutlip, S. M. (1995). Public relations history: From the 17th to the 20th century: The antecedents Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cutlip, S. M., & Cen ter, A. H. (1952) Chapter 3: Public relations its history. Effective public relations; pathways to public favor (pp. 3461). New York: Prentice Hall. Cutlip, S. M., & Center, A. H. (1971) Chapter 3: How it all began the forerunners. Effective public rel ations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2006). Chapter 4: Historical origins Effective public relations (9th ed., pp. 87 117). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
100 Dozier, D. M., Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1995). Manager's guide to excellence in public relations and communication management Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Dunn, S. W. (1986). Public relations: A contemporary approach. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin. Felton, J. W. (1997). About these papers In J. W. Felton (Ed.), At the beginning: How public relations techniques gained approval of the U.S. constitution, opened the west and led the nation through civil war and world wars I and II (pp. 1). New York: The Insti tute for Public Relations Research and Education. Grayson (2008). Grayson, William. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Washington, D.C. : US House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000403. G runig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 2162). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hamilton, A (1962). The Papers of Alexander Hamilton: Volume IV: January 1787 May 1788. (H.C. Syrett & J.E. Cooke, Eds.) New York: Columbia University Press. Hampshire -Monk, I. (1992). Chapter V: 'Publius': The federalist. A history of modern political thought: Major political thinkers from Hobbes to Marx (pp. 197260). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hendrix, J. A. (1998). Public relations cases (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Hoy, P., Raaz, O., & Wehmeier, S. (2007). From facts to stories or from stories to facts? analyzing public relations history in public relations textbooks. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 191200. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.011. Johnson, H. A. (1970). John Jay, 17451829. Albany NY. : Office of State History. Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath, & G. Vasquez (Eds.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 279290). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. King (2008). Ki ng, Rufus. Biographical directory of the United States Congress. Washington, D.C.: US House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=k000212. Kramnick, I. (Ed.). (1987). The Federalist P apers London: Penguin B ooks.
101 Lo wery, S., & DeFleur, M. L. (1995). Communication and persuasion: The search for the magic keys. Milestones in mass communication research: Media effects (3rd ed., pp. 165188). White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishers USA. Madison, J. (2006) Selected Writin gs of James Madison. (R. Ketcham, Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Madison, J., Hamilton, A., & John, J. (1987). In Kramnick I. (Ed.), The federalist papers London: Penguin Books. Maggs, G.E. (2007) A concise Guide to the federalist pa pers as a source of original meaning of the United States constitution. Boston University Law Review, 87, 801846. Marston, J. E. (1979). Modern public relations New York: McGraw -Hill. Meyers Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 159167. Miller, G. R. (1989). Persuasion and public relations: Two "ps" in a pod. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theo ry (). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Molleda, J., & Moreno, (2006). Transitional socioeconomic and political environments of public relations in Mexico. Public Relations Review, 32 (2), 104109. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.002 Monroe ( 2007). James Monroe. The White House: President George W. Bush. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm5.html. Moore, H. F., & Kalupa, F. B. (1985). Public relations, principles, cases, and problems (9th ed.). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin. Nelson, R. A. (1996). A chronology and glossary of propaganda in the United States Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Nevins, A. (1997). The constitution makers and the public: 17851790. In Institute for Public Rel ations Research and Education. (Ed.), At the beginning: How public relations techniques gained approval of the U.S. constitution, opened the west and led the nation through the civil war and world wars I and II (). New York: Published by The Institute for Public Relations Research and Education. Newsom, D., Scott, A., Scott, A., & Turk, J. V. (1989). Chapter 2: PR where its roots and where is it growing? This is PR : The realities of public relations (4th ed., ). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
102 Nolt e, L. W., & Wilcox, D. L. (1979). Chapter 3: Historical highlights. Fundamentals of public relations: Professional guidelines, concepts, and integrations (2d ed., pp. 33 48). New York: Pergamon Press. Pavlik, J. V. (1987). Public relations: What research tells us Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pfau, M., & Wan, H. H. (2006). Persuasion: An intr insic function of public relations. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pimlott, J. A. R. (1951). Public relations and big government. Public relations and American democracy (pp. 69101). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Related Information. (1999) Edmund Pendleton. Related Information: Resources to help better understand the context of the Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia, Pa.: Independence Hall Association. R etrieved May 26, 2008 from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/pendleton.htm Rush, (1999). Benjamin Rush. Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia, Pa.: Independence Hall Association. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/rush.htm. Schmucker, S. M. (1856). The life and times of Alexander Hamilton. Philadelphia: John E. Potter and Company. Schuyler (2000). Philip Schuyler. People and events. Arlington, Va.: Public Broadcast Service. Retrieved on May 20, 2008 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande11.html. Seitel, F. P. (1992). Chapter 2: The evolution of public relations. The practice of public relati ons (5th ed., pp. 25 52). New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Slater, M. D. (1999). Integrating application of media effects, persuasion, and behavior change theories to communication campaigns: A stages of -change framework. Health Communication, 11(4), 335 354. Sobel, R. (1990). Biographical directory of the United States executive branch, 1774-1989. New York: Greenwood Press. Stuart (2007). Archibald Stuart. The Jefferson encyclopedia. Charlottesville, Va .: The Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Retrieved on May 20 2008 from http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Archibald_Stuart.
103 Wilcox, D. L., Agee, W. K., & Ault, P. H. (1989). Chapter 3. Public relations: Strategies and tactics (2nd ed., pp. 35 64). New York: Harper & Row.
104 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sara Hall was born and raised in Florida and re ceived her Bachelor of Arts in e conomics in May 2006 from Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. During her academic career she has been interested in political philosophy and the founding period. Both of these inter ests heavily influenced her interest in the Federalist Papers and their role in public relations history. This thesis was completed in fulfillment of her Master of Arts in Mass Communication with a specialization in public relations from the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. She continues her education at the University of Florida at the College of Law and anticipates receivin g her Juris Doctor in May 2011.