The History Book Club discussion
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
>
WE ARE OPEN - Week Two- March 12th - March 18th (2018) - FEDERALIST. NO 2
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Reading more about Hamilton convinces me he was a genius. Can you imagine going to Princeton and telling the President that he wanted to complete all of his studies in one year. The President of the college said that could not be done so Hamilton decided to go to Columbia instead (smile).
Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the other founding fathers were "quite far sighted". The experiment appears to be still working but I worry about the complexities that are not being addressed that the founding fathers also warned about in terms of foreign influence which can come in many different forms. I think they were right about that too and some folks do not want to hear that either. Immigration is a problem currently - no doubt about it. Mass migration and taking in refugees without proper vetting is a problem and as hard as it is - the country has to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks while at the same time assisting in the humanitarian efforts that countries like Jordan are facing with the refugee crisis. Syria was already in crisis but foreign involvement has in some ways made it exponentially worse. Iraq had a dictator but somehow our going into Iraq and then pulling out prematurely made it worse. And the list goes on and on. And one of the variables in all of these hot spots was us. And don't forget the Russian involvement with our election - that is a bad case of a country trying to become involved in another countries' affairs - extremely dangerous for us.
There are all sorts of terms used to describe folks who are speaking the truth about what the founders stated including George Washington and like it or not - I think they were right about their take on foreign influence and foreign entanglements. How they could have known the pitfalls is astounding but then again they took the time to discuss human nature and its positive and not so positive characteristics.
The founding fathers tried to avoid all foreign entanglements and wars and tried not to take sides (like the Switzerland of North America) and they warned us about doing that. Avoid intrigue.
Of course, even their best intentions could spell trouble when Britain was given more favored status over France who was peeved about that since they helped us in the war against Britain. But that was assuaged too.
All of this spells out the need for the State Department not to be decimated any further which has already happened I am afraid. There does not appear to be enough people minding the store in these countries - so we do not have the presence we once had for "diplomacy" to work. The Secretary of State was a very powerful and admired position. Trump has made it far less so. And frankly Trump meeting NK is a bit scary too since Trump will need to have people there who have done their homework and understand the permutations of diplomatic negotiations and the global impact. From what I have observed about Trump - he has no "internal restraint". He will never have the ability to become "presidential" - even though he clearly is the office holder - because he is a "loose cannon". And most of the time the loose cannon is not firing with precision. In other words, I fear for the meeting but I also fear it far less than the alternative - I guess. I doubt that John Jay would have approved of much of anything that has gone on lately.
See today's news on prep - https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politi...
Jay was talking about a lot of things in this essay and revealed a great deal about the mind set of the founding fathers
Mod
Are there any questions on any of these two? Let me know how you are doing and what your thoughts are on these two papers.
What connections do you see if any to current events? Do you agree or not agree with the founders?
How do you feel about foreign entanglements and/or foreign influence? Do you think that the country has heeded the founders' warnings? Or not?
Were there any specific questions or quotes that stood out for you?
There are no right or wrong answers here. So do not be shy.
Mod
A good chunk..."
Tom, I think you were out of the gate early on this so I wanted to circle back.
I like Hamilton's style myself - he comes right out of the gate - stating the problem and what he is going to talk about without beating around the bush. Madison we will find makes sure he covers "everything" and sometimes gets down in the weeds. Jay is more diplomatic and trying to be polite to the extreme. He wants to make every one of his readers feel that each one of them counts and that the utmost care was taken with each segment of the Constitution; and that the type of individuals who were crafting it were learned men you could trust.
I am not sure that we are accustomed to men like Jay who were serious and dedicated and pretty much had devoted their lives to the country's cause.
I think of the town meetings that I have watched of current politicians where the same degree of mutual respect was not given to the town attendees as if the politician knew best and the people were uninformed.
Rather than the fact that the politicians worked for the people.
Jay was respectful of the electorate yet he felt as did the founding fathers that certain officials should not be elected directly by the people because they might not elect pure and noble men.
So for a time - elections of the President and Vice President as well as Senators were done by others. From 1789 to 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, senators were elected by state legislatures.
It was only beginning with the 1914 general election, that all U.S. senators have been chosen by direct popular election. Maybe the founding fathers had the better idea. So for the first 125 years - the senators were not elected by the people but by their state legislatures as the original Constitution stated before the amendment.
And voting for the president was done without factionalism before the rise of political parties which the founding fathers abhorred (maybe rightly so) and before the 12th amendment - we did not have the campaign circus we have today - http://presidentelect.org/art_before1...
The founding fathers were doing what they did primarily for the love of the country and sincerely were vested in having a good outcome.
Here is a little more about John Jay who just like Adams, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and others were away on the fledgling country's business just trying to help it survive. This was not an easy time.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/edu...
I do agree that the language you cited was quite embellished, flowery and meant to be overly polite and appealing. But that was the linguistic style of many during that time period.
I have to say that maybe the founding fathers had it right as well about the election of senators and president. It was more on personal qualities as well as character and intellect and not strictly along party lines. The function of the electoral college also dramatically changed with the introduction of the amendments. It was not the body envisioned by the founding fathers in its original form. It had a lot more functionality and purpose at that time as envisioned. The constitutional convention agonized over every element of the constitution.
The founding fathers had discussed how everything worked together and with the unhooking of various segments through amendments etc. which they would not have agreed to for sure a century later - that meshing of the parts working well together has in some instances caused some glitches. Also they envisioned us more of a republic rather than a pure democracy which they envisioned would lead towards tendencies of anarchy or worse so there have always been checks and balances even on freedoms for the good of everyone.
But overall their vision has stayed true. What else did you like or not like about Federalist 2?
Sources: President Elect, City Journal
Mod
We will also be using the following books in our discussions of the papers:
by
Sanford Levinson
by
Sanford Levinson
by
Michael MeyersonAnd the book we are using for discussion is:
by
Alexander Hamilton
Mod
Rex Tillerson is out. So, who gets fired next?
Chris Cillizza
By Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politi...
Tillerson found out he had been fired via a tweet:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whit...
Excerpt:
"Trump's firing of Tillerson was just the most recent of many slights suffered by the former businessman-turned-top diplomat at the hands of his boss: a senior State Department official told NBC that Tillerson officially found out that he had been fired when Trump tweeted the news that he'd been replaced.
The exit was not a voluntary one, the State Department confirmed in a startling statement Tuesday. Tillerson "did not speak to the President and is unaware of the reason" for his firing, Under Secretary of State Steve Goldstein said in a statement Tuesday morning, "but he is grateful for the opportunity to serve."
Hours after Goldstein's statement contradicting the White House's account on Tillerson, a senior State Department official confirmed to NBC News that he had also been fired. In a statement to NBC News after his dismissal, Goldstein said he was "proud to speak on behalf of the Secretary of state to the American people and allies throughout the world and this has been the honor of a lifetime."
Tillerson did not get a call from the President until after Noon
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/13/politi...
Pretty shabby treatment for someone of Tillerson's stature or for anyone for that matter
And then this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-g...
And then this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fi...
And then this:
Nikolai Glushkov, Russian exile tied to Boris Berezovsky, found dead in London - Police say there is no evidence to suggest a link to the March 4 poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nikolai-...
Quite a day.
Sources: CNN, NBC, CBS
The news of Tillerson's firing right before the North Korea meeting has me on edge too. I was counting on him to be the adult in the room to pacify the two volatile heads of state. The founding fathers had cannons as their most destructive weapon. It's a big jump to nuclear weapons.
Mod
Now we have not yet encountered Madison's style but we have now read essays by Hamilton and Jay. So with that in mind:
Discussion Topic:
1. Do you prefer the style and approach of Hamilton or Jay? Why?
Mod
The founding f..."
Connie wrote: "The news of Tillerson's firing right before the North Korea meeting has me on edge too. I was counting on him to be the adult in the room to pacify the two volatile heads of state.
The founding f..."
Yes, extremely bad timing. At least he should have gotten through the North Korea meeting intact.
It does not bode well for NK meeting or the Iran treaty. I really do not think our country should be run like an episode of The Apprentice. I think if he could fire Pence he would have done that already (smile).
Aside from family who is left from the beginning. I was thinking nobody. I was hopeful that the NK meeting would go better than expected.
An issue this president has is giving credit to anybody else and then humiliating them. He appears to demand loyalty but not give it. In fact, once your usefulness has been served - you are disposed of.
Rex Tillerson had been at Exxon Mobil since 1975 and became its chairman in 2006 and was chairman for 12 years and left to join the Trump organization in 2017.
The state department has suffered since Trump became president and over 60% of the top ranking career state department personnel have left. Tillerson was either not able to staff his jobs or unwilling.
He certainly has not been the most stellar secretary of state for sure but Trump has probably been the most difficult superior to have.
Many of the appointments that Tillerson wanted to make on merit were blocked by Trump because they had criticized him or were Democrats and instead they wanted to put in political appointees. It has been a donnybrook but treating somebody like Tillerson (as shabbily as he did) was Trump's way to humiliate him. Totally unnecessary and uncalled for. He treats people horribly.
I am not sure who would want to work for Trump given his mercurial temperament. He ruins careers. Who is left in the inner circle - Pence, Jared and Ivanka?
Maybe Trump did not like the fact that Tillerson criticized Russia and what has happened in the UK.
You are correct Connie - the founding fathers had cannons - now we have much higher stakes and I am frankly worried. At least I remembered one person who is still in the room - Mattis. There are rumblings that McMaster is on the way out too. What troubles me most is the timing. Why bring somebody on board right now when there is so much preparation for a meeting of that type. In fact, Tillerson was never even consulted when the meeting request came in and was blindsided by that as well. Aside from being top in his class at West Point and graduating from Harvard Law School, Pompeo did serve in the Army; he is a delegator and was not disliked at the CIA so maybe he will do better at the state department.
But frankly I do not see how his qualifications benefit the State Department either in any way whatsoever.
Tillerson at least stood up to the President and was "an adult" in the room. I am not so sure Pompeo will do that. He is certainly not a seasoned diplomat nor has he any training in diplomacy that I can see. His background and resume do not seem suited for the job.
We will see in the next installment of this saga.
From message 41, I agree with the point that multiple religions (at the least, denominations) already existed in the land, so Jay's reference to a shared religion seems to reach. I read the passage that spoke of the peoples' shared religion as an attribute of unity. What this passage does, though, is gloss over the extreme prejudice that befell members of certain denominations (how were Catholics or Anglicans viewed in post-Revolutionary America?).While Christianity was the majority religion in the land, the statement does two things: 1) alienates members of non-Christian religions, and 2) attempts to rally an un-unified populace into unity of thought for the ultimate goal of swaying the popular opinion.
As with last week, I read this as the author attempting to influence through inspiration (flattery, in a sense) rather than measured reason or facts. I am not criticizing this method, as it is effective and popular (not to mention that it was likely necessary), but generalizations and assertions like universally-shared attributes is all too easily proven false.
Why would Jay invite the opportunity for detractors to point out the obvious flaws in his argument? The only reason I can easily consider is religious favoritism of the time that affirms protestantism would not have anybody think twice about such a statement as Jay's regarding the topic.
Mod
Yes, I agree that Jay's purpose was persuasion; but I am not sure that I agree that everyone spoke the same language and had the same religion and were all cut from the same cloth. That is the distinction that Sanford Levinson was making. However the points that Jay proposed were true that the whole was more powerful than the colonies would be separately and they had come through a lot together. And of course that they should worry about foreign interference and influence. Those points were accurate.
I believe that Jay being a negotiator and lawyer invited his detractors to present their views to get them out into the open so the arguments could be refuted. Also, he wanted to seem like a reasonable man who was looking out for them.
Personally, I like Hamilton's direct approach better.
In comparing the two documents Federalists One and Two I think I prefer Jay's more direct presentation. In the few words of the first two paragraphs Jay has stated the issue: Do the voters want one Federal government or separate confederacies? Hamilton fails to do this. He sets up a premise that was part of the disagreement saying: we have just experienced the "inefficacy" of the Federal government which many of the Anti-Federalists would dispute either in degree or quality. He then states the problem obscurely as do voters want to choose a good government or choose to depend upon "accident or force."The Anti-Federalists would say there was nothing accidental or forced about the state constitutions. Hamilton's writing style is here more emotive and Jay more logical.
Jay is not only making a correct assessment of the situation but is more clear and simple.
Jeffrey T.
Jeffrey wrote: "Jay is not only making a correct assessment of the situation but is more clear and simple.."Back when I was working for a newspaper (I date myself with that remark.) My editor said that whenever I write a story I should picture myself leaning on the backyard fence and telling my neighbor about the subject. I've always remembered that advice and often roll it out whenever I read something like this. Hamilton was either very fond of his writing abilities or else he was paid by the word. If he had a good editor they could have changed the title to the Federalist Post-it Note.
Mod
I never thought that either Madison or Hamilton used flattery to win folks over and I felt that Jay used a bit of that approach. But then again - Jay was the negotiator among the three.
Two for Jay's style - one for Hamilton (smile).
I haven't really made up my mind which of the two I prefer. My last comment regarded the amount of effort it takes to suss out the intent of any paragraph. I realize that the use of language has evolved in the last couple centuries, though, and I should be glad that neither relied too heavily on emojis or LOLs.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "Tom you are making me laugh - emojis. They both would be upset at "internet speak". (lol)."Isn't that what the dust-up between Hamilton and Burr was about?
Bentley wrote: "Folks, post how you are doing on Federalist One and Federalist Two - are you caught up? Are there any questions on any of these two? Let me know how you are doing and what your thoughts are on th..."
My goal in reading The Federalist Papers is to understand more about when/why and not necessarily to discuss or debate current events and issues. I've read both 1 and 2 and when I have some time, I hope to go back and look at some of the videos and extra info you've provided about the authors. Thanks for putting all of this together!
To answer one of your questions: I will have to go with a resounding no on heeding the founder's warnings about foreign entanglements. Henry Kissinger discussed explicitly at the end of Diplomacy the US's inability to define and act on strategic interests, instead acting largely out of ideology (and idealism), much to its detriment.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "I was talking to somebody in India and I asked myself why am I not talking to someone in America"That is an economic question. We should probably hold that question for when we are reading The Wealth of Nations.
Mod
by
Adam SmithBookcover when available, space, by, space, author's photo when available and author's link.
Message one provides links for helpful citation assistance.
Mod
Are there any questions on any of these two? Let me know how you are doing and what your th..."
That is fine Caddy - everybody has various goals.
For our discussion we will be discussing - what is the meaning of the papers, why they were written, a bit about the founding fathers themselves, the Constitution and the Articles of Federation, current events at that time as well as discussing their relevance today in terms of court cases and other constitutional situations. But you can sample as much as you would like.
You are welcome - there are a bunch of videos and links which I hope add some ancillary info to the discussion for you.
Henry Kissinger has never been one of my favorites but he was a very intelligent individual and a lot of folks think highly of him. And he was right as were the founding fathers - we should stay out of entanglements for sure.
Just as an FYI - we have rules and guidelines for citations here at the HBC so that the powerful goodreads software can take advantage of our postings and cross populate our site.
We add the book cover, the author's photo and the author's link.
Here is an example:
by
Henry KissingerAlso folks should always look back to message one - because there are links to other threads which help out with the format of these citations if anybody needs any additional help.
I am much more persuaded Hamilton in Federalist #1 than Jay in Federalist #2. He tends to state that his opinion is a fact.Paragraph 2:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
Paragraph 3:
It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object.
And later…
However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; … .
I also do not care for the deterministic or telic reasoning/argumentation that because something is a certain state, it must have been predetermined by “Providence” to be so. Was this a product of his denominational beliefs?
Paragraph 4:
Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants.
And …
Paragraph 5:
…Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—…
Paragraph 6:
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence…
And:
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us.
Mod
As far as the reference to divine Providence or Providence or meaning that god is on our side - I think it was the style at that time and their beliefs. Although they were all strongly for separation of church from state - and many believe that the founding fathers were really not that religious to begin with.
Not sure - but we are beginning to hear those phrases slip into political speech nowadays.
The paragraphs that Jerome cites bring to mind another thing my old editor taught me. "Whenever you use the words 'undoubtedly' or 'without a doubt', all you have done is reinforce the fact that there is indeed doubt."
This has become so ingrained in my psyche that when I see the word undeniable , I automatically think, "Says who?".
Mod
Mod
See article and video:
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...
Excerpt:
“Congress is supposed to be a separate, equal branch of government,” he said.
“Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers,” Schumer said.
“One of the main purposes of Congress was to check the power of the executive branch,” he said. “Our Founding Fathers feared an overreaching executive branch, as I know my friend from Nebraska knows, because he cites these things. That responsibility doesn’t fall only on one party. It falls on all of us.”
Tom wrote: "The paragraphs that Jerome cites bring to mind another thing my old editor taught me. "Whenever you use the words 'undoubtedly' or 'without a doubt', all you have done is reinforce the fact that t..."
Tom - I understand what you are saying here but we have to remember that our language (and writing) rules today would be different from those of the founders era. I just say this to say I believe they may not have read what their contemporary Jay wrote in the way that we will read it in our context.
Jerome - I understand what you are saying about their reference to Providence. I think this term is a result of the fact that the colonies had various religious backgrounds (mostly some variation of a Christian denomination at that time). Using Providence rather than outright naming God may have been a conscious effort in the language of the day to recognize a higher power in charge without a specific identifier.Bentley wrote: Responding to Jerome: "... many believe that the founding fathers were really not that religious to begin with." I have heard similar things in media comment and read them as well. Yet the diary excerpts I read seem to speak to a fairly deep faith being exercised. I see religion and living by a faith stance as being two different things and I think that may be what we are seeing, reading or hearing here. Obviously not all of the Founders believed exactly the same, not all worshipped the same way or at all. I think we dare not create a belief system for them nor should we read more into or out of what they write in their writings. IMHO
Responding to message 79 on the meaning of 'Providence.'The OED lists two very different meanings:
1
The protective care of God or of nature as a spiritual power.
2
Timely preparation for future eventualities.
The ambiguity may be intentional so as to speak to both deists and theists.
Jeffrey T.
Jeffrey wrote: "Responding to message 79 on the meaning of 'Providence.'The OED lists two very different meanings:
1
The protective care of God or of nature as a spiritual power.
2
Timely preparation for futur..."
I, too, wondered about the use of the word "Providence" and whether (because I knew nothing about him at the start of this group read) Jay might not be a Theist instead of a Deist. But when I read a little of the Stahr 2012 biography mentioned earlier, I had to believe Jay's personal and family life consisted of an orthodox version of Christianity. Stahr reported when Jay's wife died prematurely young, the first thing he did was to gather their children in an adjoining room to read them the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (which is about hope in a resurrection). That speaks to faith in a personal God personal enough to care about the welfare of his wife and of their entire family.
Jerome wrote: "I am much more persuaded Hamilton in Federalist #1 than Jay in Federalist #2. He tends to state that his opinion is a fact.Paragraph 2:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of..."
For this Federalist Paper I admit I, too, found this offputting, but not for reasons you give. In Paragraph 5, we have
... Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people— a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence ...
This can be offputting because parts of this sound very similar to Alt-Right messages propogated in Europe over the past 2-3 years.
Now at this stage after 300-400 years of history, I think it's unreasonable and a little ludicrous to think of America as only the relatively culturally homogenous group that started the nation.
I think Jay's objective in these Papers was to argue one undivided nation was far superior in terms of national defense than a divided nation would be. So this particular reading of Providence was to buttress the case for one nation. I am not sure if Jay, had he been born in the 1900s or the 2000s, would necessarily be arguing for a culturally homogenous but narrow definition of a United States of America.
Caddy wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Folks, post how you are doing on Federalist One and Federalist Two - are you caught up? Are there any questions on any of these two? Let me know how you are doing and what your th..."
That's Kissinger's particular bent on international relations. One thing about this school of thinking, when action is taken on the basis of idealism (think FDR's attempts to help Churchill before the US declared for WWII) and it succeeds, suddenly a strategic interest is found for deciding upon that course of action. So ex post revisionism seems to me perhaps a congenital defect in that school of thought. You cannot defend Churchill's stubbornness to fight in the "Darkest Hour" (movie) on strategic interests alone.
Mod
Transcript:
Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives:
Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualification, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.
These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.
By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.
It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.
I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them.
Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.
To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed.
And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
About this speech
April 30, 1789
Source: Miller Center
Washington calls on Congress to avoid local and party partisanship and encourages the adoption of a Bill of Rights, without specifically calling them by name.
The first President demonstrates his reluctance to accept the post, rejects any salary for the execution of his duties, and devotes a considerable part of the speech to his religious beliefs.
Bentley wrote: "OK I am going to say something about what Jay and the other founding fathers implied about all of the folks who came to America at the time before, during the Revolution or when they were arguing a..."well I am trying to catch up a bit - and - a personal question in that I think Bentley says for Bentley that he thinks all illegally arriving immigrants should be deported is a bit tough. If they were fleeing prosecution or other danger and have participated in our society contributing in some ways I think that there should be a path that can be found - especially if one considers some of the places one could deport someone too - just an observation -
Jeffrey wrote: "Starting with message 41, I think the concern about trying to apply one government and one set of laws to all 13 colonies carried more impact then than we realize now.Travel and local focal issue..."
I concur with Jeffrey - the travel and communication factors probably made more difficult for folks from different regions to "bond" with different people. This was a new experiment - people had to be encouraged to think about all the aspects.
Bentley wrote: "Connie wrote: "The news of Tillerson's firing right before the North Korea meeting has me on edge too. I was counting on him to be the adult in the room to pacify the two volatile heads of state. ..."
I just make the observation that Tillerson did not leave Exxon to join the Trump organization but, I am sure in his mind, to join the US Government. This does not say I was a fan, better than Pompeo I bet, of Tillerson but the implication that he went to join Trump rather than the government is I think not accurate.
Vincent, Tillerson was probably joining both the government and Trump's administration. Trump demands so much loyalty from the people he nominates to high positions, and the two men had been friends.
Vincent wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK I am going to say something about what Jay and the other founding fathers implied about all of the folks who came to America at the time before, during the Revolution or when the..."I was trying to find Bentley original quote that is referenced above (perhaps we need to start referencing message numbers). Anyway I have a bit of a different perspective on the immigration issue. I am an immigrant from the US to another country. I had to follow certain laws and procedures to become a resident of this country. I had a certain number of hoops to jump through and was in fact denied twice before being able to meet the criteria for entry. Had I been a refugee from a dangerous situation there would have been other regulations that would come to bear in order for the government to grant me asylum. However, even refugees must enter another country legally. In the US many of the immigrants being discussed are not refugees, they are seeking a better life, the place they come from is not as good as the US obviously, however, there are laws in place, and there is a procedure for applying for to immigrate legally. If these laws are not followed then the person in question has committed a crime which then makes it twice as hard to gain legal status in the country in question. For these reasons I do not understand why it is so bad to deport illegal immigrants. If I came into your yard and stole your vehicle you would likely want me charged and punished under the law. So what is different in the realm of immigration?
Michael wrote: "Vincent wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK I am going to say something about what Jay and the other founding fathers implied about all of the folks who came to America at the time before, during the Revolu..."Hi Michael - what if you came to my door and asked for work and I gave it to you and paid you and you paid your taxes and raised your family for two to three decades - and did not steal anything or hurt anyone - and I had fled poverty (as my grandparents did from Europe in the early 20th Century but it was legal and they were caucasian) - what then? Would you not feel there could be some discussion? My wife too entered this country legally and played by all the rules but - we are wealthy enough for reasonable compassion to my view
Connie wrote: "Vincent, Tillerson was probably joining both the government and Trump's administration. Trump demands so much loyalty from the people he nominates to high positions, and the two men had been friends."maybe.... I don;t think Trump has any friends and acquaintances is more likely what he was to Tillerson. The word friend, to my view, has been used too loosely and even more so since Facebook.
Vincent wrote: "Michael wrote: "Vincent wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK I am going to say something about what Jay and the other founding fathers implied about all of the folks who came to America at the time before, d..."Vincent, I certainly do not think there are any easy answers here. Of course no one wants to live in extreme poverty. But isn't that part of the problem? So much of the world lives on less than $1.00 a day US and we have no concept of what that is like. I have gone to Haiti to help after the earthquake and in Haiti you see real poverty. However, how does a person manage to live and function as an illegal immigrant for so many years? Obviously laws have not been enforced. We have not done many of these people any favors for all those years that we have been lax in our law enforcement. I do not advocate closing the boarders. I do advocate making sure that people are here legally. This may have to be a from here on out situation with those who have been here for generations being given a status that is grandfathered. I certainly do not have all the answers but I do not believe it is fair for people who come in illegally to be allowed to stay while those who go through due process are kept waiting and perhaps even rejected for some reason. Why should a person who slips under the fence in the dark of night be given special treatment while so many people seek to immigrate legally? The issue for me is the breaking of laws. Perhaps it is not the illegal immigrants that we should be going after but rather those who employ them and create a market for them to come in illegally. Again I do not know and I really do not want to see people hurt.
Mod
‘Federalist’ Principles of Governing Are Dead – Consider the Impasse Over ‘The Wall’
Bob Barr |Posted: Jan 02, 2019 12:01 AM
Two hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.”
Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’”
Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays.
Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting.
In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch. This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body.
By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to the People of the entire country; not to the Legislative Branch.
Conversely, and in another important principle incorporated into the Constitution, Members of the Legislative Branch (the two Houses of Congress) neither answer to nor are to be controlled by the President. Rather, each Member of Congress (whether Representative or Senator) is to reflect and be answerable to the constituents of his or her district or state; not to the President.
While those interests may from time to time coincide, U.S. Representatives and Senators are not serving in that august institution merely to do a president’s bidding.
So, what has changed (other than a profound ignorance of the principles undergirding our constitutional form of government)? Why do Republican Members of Congress by and large consider it their bounden duty to use their powers and responsibilities to do the bidding of a president simply because the person occupying that office is of the same political party as are they? Similarly, why do Democrats operate in the same mode when the White House is occupied by a person with a “D” after their name?
In a word, what has turned our political structure on its head, is the one thing our Founding Fathers disdained and warned us about – party politics. Especially in the closed, two-party system that has constrained politics in America for more than a century and a half, the primary allegiance deemed important to the vast majority of Representatives and Senators now serving, is to the President who happens to be of their same political party. If the president is a Republican, the congressional leaders of that party consider it their obligation to employ their powers to enact his agenda; and failure to toe that line is considered cause for punishment. The Democrats operate in just the same manner.
Thus have the lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches become muddled, if not largely erased; and most Members of Congress now rarely assert a voice or an agenda independent from that of the president. Members not of the president’s party consider it their primary responsibility to oppose the Administration’s agenda; those who share the president’s political affiliation view it as their almost sacred responsibility to do whatever they can to support the agenda of “their” president.
More:
https://townhall.com/columnists/bobba...
Source: Townhall
Mod
Conservatives Need to Love the Filibuster Again
It matters. It really does.
by CHARLES SYKES FEBRUARY 4, 2019 4:01 AM
Huey Long, after his record-breaking filibuster in 1935
Link: https://thebulwark.com/conservatives-...
Source: The Bulwark
Mod
A Brief Biography of John Jay
John Jay's long and eventful life, from 1745 to 1829, encompassed the movement for American independence and the creation of a new nation — both processes in which he played a full part. His achievements were many, varied and of key importance in the birth and early years of the fledgling nation. Although he did not initially favor separation from Britain, he was nonetheless among the American commissioners who negotiated the peace with Great Britain that secured independence for the former colonies. Serving the new republic he was Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation, a contributor to the Federalist, the first Chief Justice of the United States, negotiator of the 1794 "Jay Treaty" with Great Britain, and a two-term Governor of the State of New York. In his personal life, Jay embraced a wide range of social and cultural concerns.
His paternal grandfather, Augustus (1665-1751), established the Jay family's presence in America. Unable to remain in France when the rights of Protestants were abolished by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, Augustus eventually settled in New York where, with an advantageous marriage and a thriving mercantile business, he established a strong foundation for his descendants. His son Peter, like Augustus a merchant, had ten children with his wife Mary Van Cortlandt, seven of them surviving into adulthood. John was the sixth of these seven. Shortly after John's birth, his family moved from Manhattan to Rye in order to provide a more salubrious environment for the raising of John's elder siblings, two of whom had been struck by blindness following the smallpox epidemic of 1739 and two others of whom suffered from mental handicaps.
Educated in his early years by private tutors, Jay entered the newly-founded King's College, the future Columbia University, in the late summer of 1760. There, he underwent the conventional classical education, graduating in 1764, when he became a law clerk in the office of Benjamin Kissam. On admission to the bar in 1768 Jay established a legal practice with Robert R. Livingston, Jr., scion of the "Lower Manor" branch of the Livingston family, before operating his own law office from 1771. Among other tasks during these years, Jay served as clerk of the New York-New Jersey Boundary Commission.
In the spring of 1774, Jay's life took two momentous turns. In April he married Sarah Livingston (1756-1802), the daughter of New Jersey Governor William Livingston, thus gaining important connections to a politically powerful Colonial family. In May he was swept into New York politics, largely as a result of the worsening relations with Great Britain. New York conservatives, seeking to outmaneuver more radical responses to the Intolerable Acts, nominated a "committee of 50," including Jay, to arrange the election of delegates to a Continental Congress. Throughout the revolutionary struggle, Jay followed a course of moderation, separating himself clearly from loyalists but resisting what he considered the extremism of more radical politicians. Thus, in the months before Independence he favored exploring the possibilities of rapprochement fully, helping to draft the Olive Branch Petition as a delegate to the second Continental Congress. As a delegate to the New York Convention of 1776-77, Jay had a formative influence in shaping the new state's constitution. Jay remained an important actor at the state level, becoming the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court before moving to the national arena to assume the Presidency of Congress in late 1778.
The fall of 1779 found Jay selected for a mission to Spain, where he spent a frustrating three years seeking diplomatic recognition, financial support and a treaty of alliance and commerce. He was to spend the next four years abroad in his nation's service both as commissioner to Spain and then in Paris, where he was a member of the American delegation that negotiated the peace terms ending America's War of Independence with Britain. This process culminated with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in September 1783.
He returned to the United States in July, 1784 to discover that he had, in his absence, been elected Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In that role he was confronted by difficult issues stemming from violations of the Treaty of Paris by both countries — issues that he would later revisit in negotiations with Britain in 1794 and which would be addressed again in the resulting "Jay Treaty." Beyond his dealings with Great Britain, Jay succeeded in having the French accept a revised version of the Consular Convention that Franklin had earlier negotiated; he attempted to negotiate a treaty with Spain in which commercial benefits would have been exchanged for a renunciation of American access to the Mississippi for a number of years; and he endeavored, with limited resources, to secure the freedom of Americans captured and held for ransom in Algiers by so-called Barbary pirates. The frustrations he suffered as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a post he held until 1789, clearly impressed upon him the need to construct a government more powerful than that under the Articles of Confederation. Though not selected to attend the Philadelphia Convention, he was a leading proponent of the principles that the new Constitution embodied and played a critical role in its ratification.
In 1787 and 1788 Jay collaborated with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison on the Federalist, authoring essays numbers two, three, four, five and, following an illness, sixty-four, thus contributing to the political arguments and intellectual discourse that led to Constitution's ratification. Jay also played a key role in shepherding the Constitution through the New York State Ratification Convention in the face of vigorous opposition. In this battle Jay relied not only on skillful political maneuvering, he also produced a pamphlet, "An Address to the People of New York," that powerfully restated the Federalist case for the new Constitution.
Read the remainder of the article: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/libraries/...
Other:
by Walter Stahr (no photo)Source: Columbia Education
Mod
Please review the posts on this thread and if you are new to the discussion please post regarding your interest in studying and reading the Federalist Papers and we will always respond.
The more folks post - the more exciting the discussion will become.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
John Jay: Founding Father (other topics)Diplomacy (other topics)
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (other topics)
The Wealth of Nations (other topics)
Diplomacy (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Walter Stahr (other topics)Henry Kissinger (other topics)
Adam Smith (other topics)
Henry Kissinger (other topics)
Sanford Levinson (other topics)
More...
"Jeffrey I agree - in fact the country was less diverse then than it is now. There were major differences then because of the tight communities at that point in time"
Just so Chief. In New England where farms were small and in places like the North Georgia mountains farms tended to be self-sufficient and any surplus was sold within the local market. This was basically true in North Georgia until railroads cut through and offered access to a wider market. This tended to produce a local focus.
I think Hamilton and the boys were very far sighted. Perhaps the best indication of that was the Northwest Territories Ordinance that was passed in 1787 but it also yielded seeds of discontent in that those who worried about the future size of the country saw this as yielding problems of expansion. I too am surprised that the founders succeeded as well as they did.