Today, the United States faces a moment of profound democratic anxiety. The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in 2025 stunned the nation and stoked fears of escalating political violence. Simultaneously, proposals like the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” have raised alarms about a vast expansion of presidential power, with critics calling it a giant leap for authoritarianism. In the opening months of President Donald Trump’s new term, press freedom watchdogs warned that press freedom is no longer a given in the United States, as the administration launched regulatory attacks that may cause irreparable harm to independent media. Such developments – political violence, rising executive power, threats to free press – echo challenges the Founding Fathers knew well. In times of crisis, they, too, grappled with questions of factional hatred, tyranny, and the preservation of liberty. Their writings are not musty relics, but living texts that can shed clarifying light on the present turmoil. Below is a curated reading list of eight seminal works by America’s Founders (all freely accessible online) that speak to the current democratic predicament. These works, ranging from famous papers to lesser-known letters, offer insight and inspiration – a chance to return to first principles in order to understand and defend American democracy today.

1. The Federalist No. 1 (1787) – Alexander Hamilton

Why start with Federalist No. 1? Because in this opening essay of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton poses the fundamental question still facing American citizens : “whether societies of men are really capable… of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend… on accident and force.” Writing in 1787 to urge ratification of the Constitution, Hamilton warned that passionate partisans would try to mislead the public with “a torrent of angry and malignant passions” and bitter invective. He observes that demagogues often cloak themselves in populist zeal for liberty, only to accumulate power: “of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” In an age of misinformation and demagoguery, Hamilton’s call for reasoned debate over raw passion – for reflection and choice over accident and force – resonates strongly. Federalist 1 reminds us that the survival of free government hinges on the ability of citizens to see through factional frenzy and think for themselves, guided by facts and principle rather than fear and fury.

Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 1: General Introduction. November 1787. In The Federalist Papers. New York: Independent Journal. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493379

---

2. The Federalist No. 10 (1787) – James Madison

James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 is the classic treatment of factionalism in a republic – and an essential read to understand how partisan hatreds can threaten democracy from within. Madison defines factions as interest groups or passionate majorities adverse to the rights of others or the common good. He acknowledges that the “instability, injustice, and confusion” caused by factional strife have been the “mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.” Indeed, the violence and turmoil arising from factional conflict had discredited self-government in history. Madison’s brilliant argument, however, is that the new Constitution’s structure – a large republic with many competing factions – would “break and control the violence of faction.” A multiplicity of interests, he explains, makes it harder for any one faction to dominate or oppress others. In our time of hyper-partisanship – when echo chambers and extremist fringes can drive people to political violence – Federalist 10 offers a framework for tempering faction’s worst effects. Madison does not naïvely suggest eliminating disagreements (which would require destroying liberty itself, “liberty is to faction what air is to fire”), but rather controlling faction’s impact through an extended republic and representative government. Readers will find in Madison’s essay a calm, logical approach to managing pluralism, and a reminder that the Constitution was deliberately designed to mitigate the dangers of factional mob rule and safeguard minority rights.

Madison, James. Federalist No. 10: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. November 1787. In The Federalist Papers. New York: Daily Advertiser. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493273

---

3. George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796)

No one loomed larger among the Founders than George Washington, and upon departing the presidency he left the nation a powerful parting message. Washington’s Farewell Address is famous for its warnings about partisan divisions and foreign entanglements, both issues uncannily relevant today. He denounces the “alternate domination” of parties that seek revenge against each other, noting that this inflames “the most horrid enormities” and is itself “a frightful despotism.” If such partisan tyranny takes hold, Washington cautions, citizens will eventually seek security in the absolute rule of a single man, enabling “the chief of some prevailing faction” to elevate himself “on the ruins of public liberty.” In other words, excessive partisanship can be the gateway to autocracy. Washington urges Americans to reject permanent factional hatred: “the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party” serve only to “distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” kindling internal animosity and even inviting foreign influence and corruption. (It was not lost on Washington that European powers might exploit domestic divisions – a point to ponder in an era of alleged election interference by foreign actors.) He calls for unity around the Constitution and the rule of law, reminding people that changes to government should come through amendments, “let there be no change by usurpation… the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” In the current climate of polarized “red vs. blue” tribalism, Washington’s Farewell Address feels like a letter written to the 21st century. It is a plea to put country over party, resist the temptations of demagogues, and remember that the shared liberty is infinitely more important than transient political triumphs.

Washington, George. Farewell Address. September 19, 1796. Philadelphia: Daily American Advertiser. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

---

4. Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (1801)

After one of the nastiest elections in early American history (the election of 1800, which many feared might even break the Union), Thomas Jefferson used his inaugural address to reach across the political divide. His First Inaugural (March 4, 1801) is a manifesto for national unity, tolerance, and republican ideals – themes that speak loudly to this era of political distrust. Jefferson famously declared, “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle… We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” Coming from the leader of the victorious Democratic-Republicans (and a fierce critic of the defeated Federalists), these words were a deliberate olive branch. Jefferson argues that Americans, despite party labels, share a common core commitment to freedom and the Constitution. He also emphasizes that majority rule must be coupled with minority rights: “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; [and] the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” This principle – that winning elections does not confer unlimited power, and that political minorities must be safeguarded – is vital to remember amid today’s winner-take-all mindset. Jefferson further urges an end to the “political intolerance” of the 1790s, likening it to the religious intolerance that America had left behind. Notably, he states that if there are those who would undermine the Union or the republican form of government, let them stand undisturbed as testaments to the freedom of opinion: “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Here is a robust early defense of free speech: even wrong-headed views can be allowed, so long as truth and reason are free to challenge them. Jefferson’s inaugural address, often poetic and optimistic, is well worth reading in full. It reaffirms the civic virtues of respect, dialogue, and unity – sorely needed attributes for healing a fractured public square in 2025.

Jefferson, Thomas. First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1801. Washington, DC. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp

---

5. The Federalist No. 51 (1788) – James Madison

How can a free republic defend itself against the threat of concentrated power, especially in the executive? James Madison’s Federalist No. 51 provides an answer that remains a cornerstone of American constitutionalism: structure matters. In this essay, Madison explains the system of checks and balances built into the Constitution. Human nature being what it is, government officials will always seek to expand their authority – so the Constitution must force ambition to check ambition. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” Madison writes, meaning that each branch of government should have both the motive and the means to resist encroachments by the others. Federalist 51 famously observes, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But since men are not angels, the government itself must be obliged “to control itself” through internal mechanisms. Madison lays out the practical design: a separation of powers, an independent legislature divided into two houses, an executive with a qualified veto, and a federal system dividing power between states and federal government – all intended to prevent any single actor or faction from amassing too much power. The urgency of these ideas is apparent when we consider modern worries about “the gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department”. Madison would not be surprised by proposals like Project 2025 – indeed, he anticipated that executives might try to gather control, which is why Congress and the courts have constitutional tools to push back. For readers today, Federalist 51 offers both reassurance and a warning. The reassurance is that the system was designed to withstand would-be autocrats by pitting their ambition against equally ambitious rivals. The warning is that this system only works if those rivals use their powers. As Madison notes, a “dependence on the people” is the primary control on government, but experience shows auxiliary precautions (like checks and balances) are “necessary to control the abuses of government”. In short, Federalist 51 is a must-read to understand how American liberty is protected by institutional tension, and why eroding those checks (or allowing one branch to cow the others) gravely imperils freedom.

Madison, James. Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments. February 1788. In The Federalist Papers. New York: New York Packet. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493463.

---

6. “Cato” Anti-Federalist Letter No. 4 (1787) – attributed to George Clinton

The Federalist authors were not the only voices in 1787–88; the Anti-Federalists opposed the new Constitution, fearing it gave too much power to the central government. Among their chief concerns was the presidency – an office they thought could easily evolve into an elected monarchy. Writing under the pseudonym “Cato,” New York Governor George Clinton sounded this alarm in a letter dated November 8, 1787. Cato bluntly warned that the proposed presidency resembled the British king more than a republican magistrate. He pointed out that a president commanding a long term of office and broad powers could build a network of cronies and dependents, leveraging patronage to entrench himself. According to Cato, vesting great authority in one individual for four years (with the chance of indefinite re-election, as the Constitution originally allowed) would tempt the office-holder’s ambition and give him the tools and time to “perfect and execute his designs.” The longer the tenure, Cato argued, the more a president could consolidate power – “the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him… to create a numerous train of dependents… the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, gives him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs.” The end of that road, Cato cautioned, was tyranny: such a leader might come to imagine he could be “great and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country.” These are chilling words in light of contemporary fears about presidents who refuse to relinquish power or who govern as if above the law. The Anti-Federalists ultimately did not prevent adoption of the Constitution, but their writings spurred important safeguards (like the Bill of Rights) and remain a bracing reminder that republics can slide into autocracy if leaders are unchecked. Cato’s letter is a sharp historical parallel to current debates: it urges citizens to be vigilant that the President does not become a de facto king. Readers interested in constitutional limits on executive power will find Cato No. 4 a thought-provoking counterpoint to the optimism of Hamilton. It is a cautionary voice about how easily an executive, cloaked in energy and urgency, might concentrate power and subvert republican government – a dynamic all too worth studying today.

Cato [George Clinton]. Cato IV. November 8, 1787. In The Anti-Federalist Papers. New York Journal. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/document/cato-iv/

---

7. Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 12 (1776) – George Mason

Freedom of the press has been front and center in 2025, with journalists facing intimidation and the government leveraging regulations against news outlets. To put this in perspective, go back to one of the earliest expressions of American ideals, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776. Drafted by George Mason (a Virginian Founder who later helped inspire the U.S. Bill of Rights), this Declaration was adopted weeks before the Declaration of Independence. Section 12 of the Virginia Declaration pronounces in ringing terms: “that the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” In other words, a free press is not a luxury or a mere privilege – it is a bulwark of liberty, a structural defense against tyranny. Any government moving to muzzle the press betrays a despotic impulse. This 1776 statement feels especially relevant when modern American officials label the press “the enemy” or pursue punitive actions against media organizations. Mason and the revolutionary generation had seen how royal governors tried to shut down dissenting printers, and they identified a free press as essential to preventing the return of tyranny. The context was different – colonial America under British rule – but the principle is timeless. Readers of the Virginia Declaration of Rights will see the DNA of the First Amendment. It is a stirring reminder that press freedom was a core American value from the outset. In an era when press freedom indices note decline and reporters in the U.S. face legal harassment, Mason’s words call citizen to defend the press as vigorously as they would defend any liberty. After all, as Mason knew, if the press is shackled, so too are the people.

Mason, George. Virginia Declaration of Rights. June 12, 1776. Williamsburg: Virginia Convention. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp

---

8. The Kentucky Resolutions (1798) – Thomas Jefferson (secret author)

What can citizens and states do when the federal government itself attacks fundamental freedoms? This was the question in 1798, when President John Adams signed the infamous Sedition Act, criminalizing harsh criticism of the government. In response, Thomas Jefferson (then Vice President) authored the Kentucky Resolutions, passed by the Kentucky legislature, to protest this blatant assault on the First Amendment. The Kentucky Resolutions are a bold assertion of constitutional principle: they argue that the states have the right to deem federal laws unconstitutional when they overstep enumerated powers. Jefferson pulls no punches in condemning the Sedition Act as a tyrannical measure aimed at silencing political opposition. He wrote that the Act was “palpably in the teeth of the constitution,” an “encroachment on rights” protected by the First Amendment, specifically designed to suppress the Republican press that opposed the Adams administration. (Privately, Jefferson even referred to the Federalist crackdown on dissent as a “reign of witches.”) The Resolutions declare the Sedition Act “void and of no force” in Kentucky, asserting that the freedom of speech and press cannot be abridged by Congress. Why read these Resolutions today? Not because state nullification is a viable remedy in the modern system (the Civil War and legal precedent settled that it is not), but because the Resolutions beautifully articulate the outrage of a free people against government censorship. Jefferson’s protest underscores that free speech is the “only effectual guardian of every other right” – a principle Madison likewise argued in his companion Virginia Resolutions and the Report of 1800. The Kentucky Resolutions prompt us to ask: how should a liberty-loving public react when those in power try to stifle dissent? Jefferson’s answer was to rise up (peacefully) through their state representatives and declare such laws illegitimate. Readers will find in the Resolutions a passionate defense of the idea that dissent is patriotic and that silencing critics betrays America’s core values. In a time when officials have openly mused about “opening up” libel laws, suing media outlets, or jailing leakers and protesters, the spirit of 1798 – the spirit of Jefferson’s defiance – is well worth rediscovering.

 Jefferson, Thomas. Kentucky Resolutions. November 10, 1798. Kentucky General Assembly. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/kenres.asp

---

Conclusion: The Founding Fathers were not demigods; they were fallible humans who fiercely debated the direction of the American experiment. Yet in their conflicts and correspondence, in their state papers and pamphlets, they grappled with eternal issues: liberty and security, dissent and unity, the temptations of power and the vigilance required to check them. Today’s United States, though vastly changed, finds itself “tested” again – by internal divisions, by the specter of authoritarianism, by assaults on truth and the free flow of information. In such times, going back to original sources is more than an academic exercise; it is a way to anchor ourselves in first principles. The eight texts above are starting points – a syllabus in the school of democratic citizenship. Reading Washington or Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Mason, or “Cato,” we are invited to think alongside the founders about how a republic survives. Their 18th-century language may sound formal, but their insights into human nature and governance are uncannily relevant. They remind us that democracy’s crises are not new – and that the forebears left us a wealth of wisdom on how to meet those crises. Perhaps most of all, these writings rekindle hope. The founders emerged from war and turmoil with an enduring faith in the American people’s capacity for “reflection and choice.” If citizens, the heirs of 1776 and 1787, can likewise choose reason over passion, unity over hatred, and courage over complacency, then the constitutional ideals they entrusted to Americans will weather this storm as well. Each of these founding voices has something to teach about the present moment – and collectively, they call back to the sources of American democracy for guidance in securing its future.

Read these works, share them, debate them – and let the voice of the Founders inform and energize the civic response to the challenges of 2025. By returning to the roots, we may yet ensure that the nation, “conceived in liberty,” endures and thrives through the trials of today, true to its founding promises.