The History Book Club discussion
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
>
WE ARE OPEN - Week Two- March 12th - March 18th (2018) - FEDERALIST. NO 2
Mod
http://federali.st/2
FEDERALIST No. 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (John Jay)
October 26 - November 1 (page 31)
During that last time we discussed The Federalist Papers - there were some articles that we cited by Michael Meyerson. I am including them again..
Here are some interesting articles that Meyerson cites:
http://www.michaelmeyerson.com/column...
Here is a link to some FAQs that Meyerson did regarding The Federalist Papers which may be helpful:
http://www.michaelmeyerson.com/faq.html
Here is the C-Span video with Meyerson discussing his book and The Federalist Papers (it is very well done and discusses among other things the purpose of these writings and why they are important):
The presentation was called "Liberties Blueprint" -
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/20...
by
Michael MeyersonNote: The above is also a helpful book we may refer to in our discussions.
The copy of the book that I am using is the following:
by
Alexander HamiltonWe will only be discussing one Federalist Paper a week and we will go in order.
Members can also discuss any previous Federalist paper on its specific thread which was already assigned and or introduced in previous weeks.
Please make sure to be clear which Federalist Paper you are referencing when you post and post to the specific thread assigned to that paper.
So as an example, in week one, we will be able to discuss only Federalist #1, Week Two we will be able to discuss Federalist #2 or a member can go back and make reference to Federalist #1 on the week one thread; in Week Three members will be discussing Federalist #3; but members can also during Week 3 make reference to either Federalist #2 or # 1 at any time during that week's period on their specific threads.
But for example, discussion on Federalist #4 cannot take place until Week 4 commences.
This will help us avoid spoilers for those members who are just catching up and it will help minimize confusion. Additionally for anybody trying to catch up - they can go in order and not be confused about discussions that refer to other papers in previous weeks.
If anybody would like to kick off discussion of Federalist Paper #2 with some introductory discussion questions, comments, etc. Please feel free to do so.
Mod
The Liberties Blueprint presentation done by MEYERSON is quite interesting and answers a lot of introductory questions folks might have about The Federalist Papers.
Meyerson says that his book is really a book advertising the importance of reading another book "The Federalist Papers" in its entirety. He describes Madison and Hamilton as being somewhat of an odd couple; Hamilton (popular and handsome and socially savvy) and brilliant; while Madison was bleak, cold and somewhat sickly in appearance yet also quite brilliant. Hamilton was reckless whereas Madison was more a cautious personality. They came together to sell the idea and the verbiage of the Constitution. They wanted to appeal to reason; so they wrote at least four (4) articles a week for newspapers in order to present to the public what the Constitution was all about and why it was important to the American people that it get ratified.
Meyerson stated that the Constitution was sparse, short and complicated and left open all kinds of questions. Madison and Hamilton wanted to make sense of it for the public.
They wanted to answer some of the questions that ordinary citizens might have; 1) why do we separate powers, 2) why do we have checks and balances, 3) why do we have power for both the Federal and the State governments.
According to Meyerson, they had to explain why the constitution was uniquely American, was the legacy of the American Revolution, what it meant to be free and how the Constitution was actually going to protect them and their freedoms. Hamilton felt that it was important to explain to the people why all of the powers inherent in the Constitution fit in with why the colonists fought the Revolution in the first place.
Hamilton and Madison felt it was important to explain "how" the government was going to work and "what" power means. It was important for the common man to understand that the Constitution was written for imperfect beings. The question was...how do you write a Constitution then for imperfect beings who could misuse "power" itself?
Let us think about the following (Meyerson statement follows): "If the majority is united...the minority is at risk -- whether you are talking about ethnic minorities, religious minorities, racial minorities. You have no other ability; but to rely on the people..now that by itself would be pretty scary. They wanted to emphasize that democracy and freedom are not the same. Just because the majority rules does not mean that minorities will be protected, it in fact could mean they will be harmed. Meyerson pointed out that sometimes if you look at the elections around the world - oftentimes it looks like the "intolerant majority" rules.
The Founding Fathers knew that they had to depend upon the people - but that the country and the people needed extra precautions. Combining all three branches of government: legislative, judicial and executive could result in tyranny. The lawmaker could make the rules, the executive could arrest anybody they wanted to and the supreme judicial body could then automatically convict them. That is why every tyranny known to man has had all three combined in one. The Founding Fathers knew that they had to be separated to stop just that.
Mod
Meyerson discussed the simple separation of the three branches of government; he emphasized that Hamilton, Jay and Madison wanted to drive home the points that "power is of an encroaching nature" and that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition".
According to the author, the Founding Fathers wanted to get the House of Representatives and Senate filled up with really ambitious people - their belief was that "private greed polices private ambition". They believed that no branch was supposed to have all of the power vested in that segment. Meyerson recommends that everyone should read all 85 essays and then these same readers will understand that there was no simple answer to the dilemma on how to handle unbridled power and conflicting priorities and that the answer that the Founding Fathers came up with was that "they wanted a complicated government with competing themes."
The key was that "no one is supposed to have all of the power"!
Meyerson felt that all 85 essays were important reading although he thought that 18 - 20 were boring.
The Founding Fathers took the view that they should take away all of the power, separate it out, and then combine the various entities under one umbrella - thereby giving each segment the ability to check and balance the others...without any one of the entities being able to override any of the others outright without due consideration given and/or checks being in place to prohibit abuse (checks and balances).
Meyerson defined the term "Federalism" as the relationship between the Federal and various states' governments. Maybe that is what Jefferson meant in his inaugural speech that "we are all Federalists"!
It was Madison who argued that if you gave power to both the Federal and State governments - you intentionally had "double protection"; it was his theory and that of the Founding Fathers that the more separate government entities you have - the freer you are because it is that much harder for "any one person" to take over "everything".
Mod
What I would suggest:
- We should read the weekly essay first.
- We should cite page and/or paragraph from the weekly essay itself and make our comments
- We can invite any discussion regarding the reading of the weekly essay itself
- If the essay belongs to a previous week which has past, then we can also post any of our notes, any of our sources, quote any backup source material itself including Meyerson's book or Levinson's books. Other books cited should be properly cited. And keep the discussions in the appropriate numbered thread which coincides with the numbering of the papers themselves.
- At any time, any poster can go back and discuss any previously assigned Federalist paper. We just cannot discuss the next one until that discussion is opened. But we can still discuss the Federalist papers as a whole all through the discussion itself. And you can go back and forth between older threads for earlier papers and other threads that are opened. Just keep the discussion for each paper on the appropriate thread.
- So a suggestion would be very simply along these lines - Read the weekly essay and any summaries you might have available first, cite for the weekly essay only those citations from the essay itself; for previous week's essays/papers: (in our case - Federalist papers #1 and #2) previous weeks' essays are now fair game for all source discussion from other sources including Meyerson, Levinson and any background notes. But simply discuss each Federalist Paper on its own thread as they are opened up weekly.
- In terms of notes; if I have posted a source, I have been listening to that source and taking notes which I post as I get them in order - normally in the glossary thread unless they are germane to the weekly discussion of a specific paper.
Mod
The first review was from Publishers Weekly:
"The greatest founders--such as Washington and Jefferson--have kept even the greatest of the second tier of the nation's founding generation in the shadows. But now John Jay (1745-1829), arguably the most important of this second group, has found an admiring, skilled student in Stahr, an international lawyer in Washington. D.C. Since the last biography of Jay appeared 60 years ago, a mountain of new knowledge about the early nation has piled up, and Stahr uses it all with confidence and critical detachment. Jay had a remarkable career. He was president of the Continental Congress, secretary of foreign affairs, a negotiator of the treaty that won the United States its independence in 1783, one of three authors of The Federalist Papers, first chief justice of the Supreme Court and governor of his native New York. Very few men exceeded Jay in importance and influence. Yet he presents a problem for any biographer: he was a conservative man of unfailingly sober disposition who left his mark more in significant deeds than in memorable words and commanding decisions. Stahr, however, captures both his subject's seriousness and his thoughtful, affectionate side as son, husband, father and friend. In humanizing Jay, Stahr makes him an appealing figure accessible to a large readership and places Jay once again in the company of America's greatest statesmen, where he unquestionably belongs. B&w illus. (Mar.)
Source: Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The other short review was done by Booklist:
"John Jay's writings lacked Jefferson's passionate eloquence in defense of liberty; his demeanor did not radiate the gravitas of Washington; he apparently did not share Madison's zest for and grasp of political theory. Yet, as this well-done biography illustrates, Jay was a vital figure in the founding of our republic, and he deserves an ample share of credit for the nurturing of our nation in its infancy. Stahr, an international lawyer, has written a fast-paced narrative account of Jay's life that stresses his deep religious connections, strength of moral character, and dedication to duty. By nature, Jay was conservative, and he was a reluctant revolutionary with the usual Federalist fears about unrestrained democracy. As an attorney and as first chief justice of the Supreme Court, he understood implicitly the need for the rule of law to prevail over the tendency to seek salvation from "great" men. He was a gifted diplomat whose negotiations in Europe helped our vulnerable nation to avoid conflicts with European powers, and he was an effective governor of New York." Jay Freeman
Source: Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Here is what others stated like Walter Isaacson:
"John Jay was a brilliant and fascinating statesman who, along with his friend Benjamin Franklin, helped define the values of American diplomacy. Walter Stahr writes with great insight, and this wonderful book should help restore Jay's place in the pantheon of our great Founding Fathers." -- Walter Isaacson, author of Benjamin Franklin: An American Life
Here is the book they were referencing about Jay:
by Walter Stahr (no photo)I guess my impression is now that he must have been boring, but extremely effective at diplmacy and well respected; another enigma (smile)
Mod
Wikipedia:
"Governor George Clinton's faction in the New York legislature had chosen New York's other two delegates, John Lansing and Robert Yates, and both of them opposed Hamilton's goal of a strong national government. Thus, while the other two members of the New York delegation were present, they decided New York's vote; and when they left the convention in protest, Hamilton remained with no vote (two representatives were required for any state to cast a vote)."
This is why Hamilton needed Jay; he was having problems with New York!
Regarding Jay - the wikipedia article indicated the following about him:
John Jay (December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, a Founding Father of the United States, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States. During and after the American Revolution, he was a minister (ambassador) to Spain and France, helping to fashion United States foreign policy and to secure favorable peace terms from the British (the Jay Treaty) and French. He co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
As leader of the new Federalist Party, Jay was Governor of New York from 1795 to 1801 and became the state's leading opponent of slavery. His first two attempts to pass emancipation legislation failed in 1777 and 1785, but the third succeeded in 1799. The new law he signed into existence eventually saw the emancipation of all New York slaves before his death."
He may not set our world on fire; but he obviously was effective even if he was not eloquent; and was a trusted New Yorker. Maybe that what was needed was a trusted New Yorker speaking to the citizens there.
I think at the very least; it was Jay who took the initiative to start writing the papers maybe for his own people and state. Hamilton had already indicated that some of the earlier papers would focus on the Articles of Confederation and their weaknesses.
Jay states: "But politicians now appear, who insist that...instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the states into distinct confederacies or sovereignties."
Do you really think that is what the states were saying after the wars? And that they all of a sudden wanted to go it alone? Or were they simply complaining about states rights and that they were worried about even a stronger centralized base of government? I thought that Jay was overstating their case for some reason.
Many think that Cato who they are referring to in the Federalist Papers was actually a reference to George Clinton who was the first governor of New York State.
The Architect of the Capitol site:
http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/clinton...
Mod
"It is important to note some of the beliefs and ideals of John Jay, as Federalist #2 is one of the few federalist papers that he wrote (due to sickness, he wrote only 2-5 and 64). Aside from being a strong believer in free government, Jay was a promoter of peace within the United States. As early as 1779, he regretted that Congress, being instituted mainly for the purpose of opposing the tyranny of Britain and for establishing independence, had no authority to interfere in the particular quarrels of the states, feeling that this prevented Congress from settling disputes among the states. Two years later, he continued this philosophy by criticizing the constitution of Massachusetts for describing the state "as being in New England, as well as in America," and wrote "perhaps it would be better if these distinctions were permitted to die away." His biographer relates that Jay even rejoiced that various families were intermarrying with those of other states, because this was conducive to friendship among the states. This essay, therefore, is a natural outgrowth of a long-lived philosophy and hence Jay was a natural collaborator with Alexander Hamilton.
Mod
"Jay suffered a serious bout of ill health. He seems to have been painfully crippled by rheumatoid arthritis, although he could report by 11 February 1788 that his health was "pretty well re-established."
Additionally, he received a blow to the head.
The following account shows how Jay was injured seriously while trying to stop the Doctor's Riot and the impact of his helping write the papers:
"That recovery was seriously jeopardized by the mishap that befell him as a participant in the Doctors Riot. The riot started on Sunday, 13 April 1788, when as a prank a medical student waved a dismembered limb at some boys below a window of the New York Hospital. The finding of dismembered corpses inside the building pointed to grave-robbing, and in the ensuing riot physicians and students from the hospital were forced to take refuge in the city jail. Hamilton, attempting to stop the rioters in front of Columbia College, was swept aside. Governor George Clinton and Mayor James Duane then sought to restrain the mob from attacking the jail, but even a small contingent of militia was chased away. By the following afternoon, with the jail still under siege, Matthew Clarkson and Jay, armed with their swords, marched toward the jail accompanied by some fifty militiamen. Jay was struck in the forehead with a stone, and others, including Baron von Steuben, similarly assaulted. Unconscious and bleeding, Jay, as his wife's letter to her mother of 17 April 1788 discloses, was carried home for emergency medical attention. Even reinforcements of a company of sabre-wielding cavalry galloping up Broadway failed to bring the rioting to a halt until the following day [Sarah Livingston Jay to Susannah Livingston, 6480:]. For a time it was thought that Jay had suffered permanent brain damage. Evidently before this serious accident Jay must have completed his Address to the People of New York, a pamphlet which ranks with the Federalist letters as among the most notable contributions of the pro-Constitution camp to the ratification movement.
After the onset of Jay's illness in late November of 1787, Madison took up the slack with alacrity, contributing Nos. 10 and 14 to the section on the "utility of the Union," and three more. Nos. 18, 19, and 20, to the topic of the "insufficiency of the present Confederacy to preserve that Union." Madison then proceeded to contribute his insightful analysis of the text of the Constitution."
Source: Columbia University; Essay - John Jay and the Constitution; Based on notes of Professor Richard Norris
Mod
Here is an excerpt from the Columbia University papers on John Jay:
Jay wrote Thomas Jefferson with his ideas:
"Secondly, although Jay had been one of the earliest and most consistent advocates of augmenting the powers of Congress in the areas of taxation and the regulation of commerce, he was concerned that an omnipotent Congress might be established. To prevent such a possibility he advocated the separation of powers and checks and balances. "I have long sought," he wrote Jefferson in 1786, "and become daily more convinced that the construction of our Federal government is fundamentally wrong. To vest legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one and the same body of men, and that, too, in a body daily changing its members, can never be wise. In my opinion, these three great departments of sovereignty should be forever separated, and so distributed as to serve as checks on each other."[August 18, 1786, , 5860:] Again: "Let Congress legislate," he wrote Washington in 1787. "Let others execute. Let others judge." To the executive he would give a veto power over the acts passed by a dual-chambered legislature. [January 7,1787, 8424, 10393 (no images):]
JOHN JAY AND THE CONSTITUTION:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
JAY AND NEW YORK
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
THE PAPERS OF JOHN JAY:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digit...
THE JAY TREATY:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
JAY AND FRANCE:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
JAY AND SLAVERY:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
JAY PRINT PROJECT:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
LEGACY PROJECT:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/confe...
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN JAY:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/...
Source: Columbia University
Mod
http://michaelscherervoice.com/the-fe...
Publius
Readers will notice that a pseudonym was used with these essays. Alexander Hamilton wrote this first paper but also signed the essay with the "Publius" pseudonym.
"Publius," was used in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. Publicola had helped establish the Roman Republic and his name means "friend of the people".
Here is the wikipedia write-up on Publius:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_...
Mod
by
Sanford Levinson
by
Sanford Levinson
by
Michael MeyersonAnd the book we are using for discussion is:
by
Alexander Hamilton
Mod
I want you to know that this is a discussion that I hope will be led by all of you - your comments and questions and interactions will be what keeps us going - I think this could be a very interesting undertaking.
Also feel free to cite court cases (Supreme Court) etc. which deal with topics and issues brought forth in The Federalist Papers. Or any of the topics that are in the news or there is any on going conflict which pertains to the discussion itself.
There is no need to have to cite either book we are using or any of the founding fathers who wrote these papers on these discussion threads. However if you cite an ancillary book, you must use our citation rules.
My name is Bentley - I am the Founder of the group and I will be your moderator. I am living in the Metro NYC area and I love history. I am hoping that everyone will join in and have a fun and lively discussion. I am excited about doing this now because I find that our constitution and our institutions are under great scrutiny lately for a variety of reasons. The papers seem to have as much relevance today as they did when the founders were just trying to get the Constitution ratified.
Mod
Awesome.
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1324...
Mod
Federalist № 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York: - John Jay wrote this one
When the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident. ¶ Number 1
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. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government. ¶ Number 2
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. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy. ¶ Number 3
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. 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. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities. ¶ Number 4
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that 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. ¶ Number 5
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties. ¶ Number 6
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states. ¶ Number 7
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer. ¶ Number 8
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration. ¶ Number 9
This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils. ¶ Number 10
Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so. ¶ Number 11
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable. ¶ Number 12
These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience. ¶ Number 13
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness. ¶ Number 14
Publius. [John Jay]
First published in the Wednesday, October 31, 1787 issue of the Independent Journal.
Mod
Essay Overview and Summary:
"In one of the few essays written by John Jay, he begins by stating two facts of political life: some form of government is necessary in a society and all forms of government must be granted sufficient power to regulate conflict and administer the laws. The people grant these powers.
The American people must decide what form of government will best protect their safety and interests. The choice before them is between uniting under one national government or becoming separate states.
Jay continues that there is no longer a common consensus that America's prosperity depends on being firmly united. Jay's aim is to answer this argument. First, he contends that the country is already united in several natural ways. The geography of the beautiful land suggests that we remain a united people because the navigable streams and rivers, which encourage transportation and trade, connect the states. More importantly, he argues that the people worship the same God, come from the same land, speak the same language, have similar manners and customs, and believe in the same principles of government.
For Jay, however, the recently fought Revolutionary War was the main reason to stay united. The Constitutional Convention was composed of extraordinary men who deliberated for four months, unwed by power and free from corrupting influences. Their remarkable plan reflects the quality of their deliberations. The Articles of Confederation were not working satisfactorily for the new country.
Jay explains that the framers do not ask for blind acceptance, but rather want sober consideration, equal to the importance of the subject. Men in their midst who will profit from the separation of the states should not be allowed to place the Union in jeopardy."
Source: GradeSaver
Mod
The text of Publius’ article on America’s national character—with a commentary on its relevance to the immigration debate today.
By Publius and Sanford Levinson
The Federalist was published in 1787–88 as part of the effort to secure ratification of the new Constitution drafted in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787.
The target audience was New York’s delegates, who were widely (and correctly) viewed as less than enthusiastic about the document. A no vote from New York threatened to doom the entire project of replacing the Articles of Confederation. But on July 26, 1788, New York’s delegation voted 30–27 in favor of ratification. The Federalist had done its job.
The Federalist was written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, under the pen name Publius. From the beginning, Publius emphasized the “inefficacy”—he would later refer to it as the “imbecility”—of the existing political system established by the Articles of Confederation. Fortunately, there was a solution: adoption of the new Constitution, which would unite the 13 former Colonies in a far more consolidated national government.
At the time, this was a controversial proposition. One critic of the new Constitution, writing under the pen name Agrippa, opposed ratification by arguing, “It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts.” Georgians and residents of Massachusetts were just too dissimilar, he believed. “They must, therefore, legislate for themselves” instead of endorsing a new political system that will ultimately lead to one-size-fits-all national legislation.
Federalist No. 2, one of the few written by Jay, was an attempt to respond to such arguments by claiming that the heterogeneity of the states was greatly exaggerated; far more important, Publius argues, was the homogeneity of the American people. The system of government Publius espoused would work, he argued, because Americans hailed from common backgrounds and held common beliefs.
The ability of the United States to achieve some kind of political unity out of the plurality of groups that inhabit it is very much the subject of debate, and a fevered one, of late, thanks to neo-nativist presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The questions they are raising about the importance of national character to the success of the American project are, for better or worse, precisely those suggested by Publius. European nations weighing whether to admit Syrian refugees to their countries are struggling with these questions as well.
Whether we should turn to Publius for wise counsel on our present circumstances is certainly debatable; it is clear, however, that he raised questions of enduring significance to our nation.
—Sanford Levinson
Source: Slate
Mod
https://youtu.be/j4S1ussrlks
Historian and author Walter Stahr discusses the life and lasting influence of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He discusses John Jay’s co-authorship of several of the Federalist Papers and the pivotal role he played in the founding of our nation. For more information on John Jay, check out our Part I video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZeR6... or browse the links below.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Related Links:
John Jay: Founding Father by Walter Stahr
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009...
Historian Walter Stahr’s website:
http://walterstahr.com/
John Jay Homestead located in Katonah, New York
http://johnjayhomestead.org/
Source: Youtube and The Federalist Society
Mod
https://youtu.be/yZeR6aW_9dM
Historian Walter Stahr discusses the life of Founding Father John Jay and his role in forming our nation. Stahr is the author of John Jay: Founding Father.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
John Jay: Founding Father by Walter Stahr
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009...
Historian Walter Stahr’s website:
http://walterstahr.com/
John Jay Homestead located in Katonah, New York
http://johnjayhomestead.org/
Source: Youtube and The Federalist Society
Mod
Federalist № 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York: - John Jay wrote this one
When the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident. ¶ Number 1
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. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government. ¶ Number 2
Mod
Who was John Jay?
Jay played important and prominent roles during the founding of the United States and yet, his name isn’t one that many would list if asked to name founding fathers.
Today, we explore John Jay and his contributions to the founding of the United States with Robb Haberman, associate editor of The Selected Papers of John Jay documentary editing project.
https://youtu.be/TwJ2FyPGhT4
Source: Youtube
I'm looking forward to the discussion of ¶11 as I am woefully ignorant of what was 'recommended' by the First Continental Congress and the ensuing media kerfuffle that Jay referred to.A good chunk of this paper seems to be Jay's kissing up to the readers, suggesting that they would not render 'Blind approbation' nor 'BLIND reprobation', but would subject the issue to 'that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive'.
Mod
Mod
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Source: Khan Academy
Mod
Shay's Rebellion:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Source: Kahn Academy
Mod
Two parts - video (short)
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
and:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Source: Khan Academy
Mod
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Source: Khan Academy
Mod
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
Source: Khan Academy
Mod
There is a brief video on the Articles of Confederation, The Bill of Rights (write-up), video on the Constitutional Convention, Shay's Rebellion, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers (write-up) and Alexander Hamilton. All of these are very brief but highlight the most salient points easily and effortlessly.
Mod
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
The Presidency of John Adams:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Source: Khan Academy
Mod
Washington's Farewell Address 1796
1796
Friends and Citizens:
The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.
I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
Mod
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
Mod
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.
How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.
The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.
The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.
Mod
The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.
Discussion Questions:
1. Why did George Washington think that political parties were dangerous? Did his warnings have any validity - why or why not?
2. George Washington warned about protecting the unity of government and had this to say..."indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." What would George Washington think of current affairs, our politicians, our government in general and the attempts by factions to alienate and divide?
3. George Washington argued against foreign intrigues and alliances and embroiling ourselves in their affairs. How would he view current events? Why did Washington advise the United States to pursue a policy of isolationism? Do you agree with that - why or why not?
4. What are your thoughts on this paragraph - also argued by Hamilton, Madison and Jay?
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
5. Your thoughts on Washington's words in the following excerpts?
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests."
6. Washington gave some very good advice - feel free to discuss whatever you would like from his address in relationship to what Hamilton, Madison and Jay are also promoting in The Federalist Papers.
Mod
Mod
Anti Federalists and Brutus I
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Source: Khan Academy
As always your thoughts? We will be discussing the Anti Federalists after completing The Federalist Papers.
Mod
Federalist № 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York: - John Jay wrote this one
When the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident. ¶ Number 1
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. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government. ¶ Number 2
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. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy. ¶ Number 3
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. 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. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities. ¶ Number 4
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that 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. ¶ Number 5
The above are just the first five paragraphs in order for us to get started with the conversation.
Mod
Publius Valerius Publicola
"At the time, this was a controversial proposition. One critic of the new Constitution, writing under the pen name Agrippa, opposed ratification by arguing, “It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts.” Georgians and residents of Massachusetts were just too dissimilar, he believed. “They must, therefore, legislate for themselves” instead of endorsing a new political system that will ultimately lead to one-size-fits-all national legislation.
Federalist No. 2, one of the few written by Jay, was an attempt to respond to such arguments by claiming that the heterogeneity of the states was greatly exaggerated; far more important, Publius argues, was the homogeneity of the American people. The system of government Publius espoused would work, he argued, because Americans hailed from common backgrounds and held common beliefs."
The ability of the United States to achieve some kind of political unity out of the plurality of groups that inhabit it is very much the subject of debate, and a fevered one, of late, thanks to neo-nativist presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The questions they are raising about the importance of national character to the success of the American project are, for better or worse, precisely those suggested by Publius. European nations weighing whether to admit Syrian refugees to their countries are struggling with these questions as well.
Discussion Topics: (Read at least the first five paragraphs of Federalist 2 today to just get started ) and Sanford Levinson's response)
1. How does Jay open up Federalist 2? What does he say is the important decision to be made? Does he make his case that we as a people must cede some of our rights to form the necessary government we need? Jay presents the two choices between the federalists and the anti-federalists. What would our country look like now if they had chosen something different?
2. Jay is going to discuss how the United States has gained its unity by virtue of nature's bounty - including it extensive rivers which form connections between the states and that we are a united people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language and professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsel, arms and efforts, fighting side by side thoughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. Was this true? Yes, we had many English ancestors but did we forget about the Native American tribes who were already here or the thousands of slaves brought from Africa. I have to say this about our wonderful founding father Benjamin Franklin (and I do think he did many great things for our country); but he was appalled by the presence of German speakers in Pennsylvania!!! (and this probably was a sign of the times then)
3. Did the early settlers even have the same religion? Wasn't there the Church of England, Puritans, Quakers, Lutherans and other Protestant faiths as well as probably Catholics? Was their homogeneity even at the time of Jay?
4. Sanford Levinson goes on to say "that the people were hardly attached to the same principles of government at this time". He said, "think only of the significant number whom we tend to forget, who cast their lot with King George III and after defeat resettled in Canada, Jamaica, Great Britain and the case of former slaves - Sierra Leone? Does this ring true?
Note: Federalist 2 really gets to some of the immigration arguments one will hear today and I do not want anybody to be offended but we will be presenting both sides of the arguments for reflection, debate and discussion to get everything out. We do not want to leave the moose on the table without calling it out. So jump into the debate and we are going to be talking about some sensitive issues with civility and respect.
by
Sanford Levinson
Mod
We have opened up our discussion on the first five paragraphs already.
Mod
I think I agree with this in part and I know that others will get upset over this.
Here is an article:
Trump wants immigrants to 'share our values.' They say assimilation is much more complex
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la...
Here is an excerpt:
While much has been made about Trump's harsh talk of deporting those here illegally, the president's comments about the need for immigrants to fully embrace American culture has renewed a long-running debate that dates back generations.
"Not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate," President Trump said in a campaign-trail speech in which he called for new immigrants to pass an "ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people."
In one Republican debate, Trump declared that "we have a country where, to assimilate, you have to speak English … This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish."
Though Espinoza and others might disagree with Trump's policies on immigration, they say discussions about assimilation get to the heart of a balancing act all immigrants face: being American while preserving a strong sense of where they came from.
"Have I been assimilated? I don't know," said the 45-year-old director of the graduate creative writing and literary arts program at Cal State Los Angeles. "Some people will probably say yes — look at how I dress and speak and where I'm educated. And some people will say no — he speaks Spanish and has a Mexican passport."
Summary:
I see what Jay was implying when trying to persuade Americans to adopt the Constitution and though I think he did not mention the differences accurately (focusing on similarities) - you knew where he was coming from.
If immigrants are not coming to this country with the hopes and intentions of assimilating; then our country will be changed and not for the better.
One of the fears is that their numbers will grow and will change the dynamics and the voting public here in this country and what we hold dear.
That our founding fathers' priorities for our country and one rule of law might be challenged by let's say sharia law or attitudes towards women we do not accept and that are not part of our culture.
Why do we have to change because others are coming to this country with no intention to learn English, obey our laws or integrate into our culture and become more like the citizens who are here already versus where they came from.
Britain has had a lot of trouble where entire groups have taken over sections of cities where it is dangerous to even drive through and they are coping with that now and that was a big reason why the UK voted for Brexit is that they were worried about their country and its makeup and the lack of assimilation on the part of these immigrants. And they wanted to control their borders.
I feel that immigrants or folks who come to this country need to come here legally or they should be deported. I believe we need strong borders but I do not think the founding fathers were talking about building any new walls (smile).
I think folks who are more culturally similar and share strong cultural sameness have a better chance of assimilating in this country and in others. If a group is just transplanting themselves from one part of the world and then just wants to make our part of the world or our country - the same as the country they left - then I agree with Trump and with David Cameron. I personally am not interested in pockets of sharia law here in this country usurping our own form of government or pockets of any other culture overshadowing ours.
Now the ban that Trump was trying to put into place. A few words.
I felt that it was extremely offensive given that the countries where the terrorists have actually come from were not on there to begin with and it appeared to everyone that it was based upon religion.
One thing that our country has held dear is the separation of church from state and that we have religious freedom - what many came here for at the very beginning.
Having said that - the DACA folks have followed the laws, have integrated and assimilated and speak English - they came out of the shadows and did everything that was required of them and they were not responsible for being here illegally and Obama, Trump and both political parties said that they were going to protect them and haven't at this juncture. Obama did his best but the current Congress has done nothing. If the courts had not intervened - March 5th was their deadline. Truly awful what has happened to them and what they have been put through.
Their parents are another thing - and I am not sure how I feel about folks overstaying their Visas or coming here illegally. I am all for immigration but I think we need to give a fair shot to all countries.
Now here is what our founding fathers had to say and John Jay is just getting warmed up here in Federalist 2:
Immigration and the Values of Our Founding Fathers
By MICHELLE MALKIN
December 11, 2015 5:00 A
"President Obama claims that restricting immigration in order to protect national security is “offensive and contrary to American values.” No-limits liberals have attacked commonsense proposals for heightened visa scrutiny, profiling, or immigration slowdowns as “un-American.”
America’s Founding Fathers, I submit, would vehemently disagree.
Our founders, as I’ve reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect, and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.
In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”
No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, “Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”
Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that, “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Alexander Hamilton (he was an immigrant by the way), relevant as ever today, wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”
Hamilton further warned that “the United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
He predicted, correctly, that “the permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”
The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” He asserted: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
On Thursday, a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a stunningly radical amendment by Senator Pat Leahy (D., Vt.), to undermine the national interest in favor of suicidal political correctness. The measure would prevent the federal government from ever taking religion into account in immigration and entrance decisions, “as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”
This pathway to a global right to migrate runs contrary to our founders’ intentions as well as decades of established immigration law. As Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) pointed out in a scathing speech opposing the Leahy amendment: “It is well settled that applicants don’t have the constitutional right or civil right to demand entry to the United States. . . . As leaders, we are to seek the advancement of the public interest. While billions of immigrants may benefit by moving to this country, this nation-state has only one responsibility. We must decide if such an admission complies with our law and serves our national interest.”
Put simply, unrestricted open borders are unwise, unsafe, and un-American. A country that doesn’t value its own citizens and sovereignty first won’t endure as a country for long.
— Michelle Malkin is author of the book Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.
Note: I have to say that I agree with the founding fathers and I think folks need to reflect seriously about the intentions of the people who are coming here and why. Is it because they want to assimilate and maintain the freedoms, beliefs, culture, gender equality that we have here or do they have another intent in mind - to undermine our way of life in favor of their own beliefs which they really do not want to change - just transplant them to our soil.
The Statue of Liberty has it right - Give me your tired and your poor. We have always been a beacon of hope for those who want a better life, who want to work and achieve the American dream and have worked hard for themselves and their children to achieve more than they had achieved and that has worked since the Mayflower. And we have taken those people in and welcomed them. But right now I think things are different and we should take a long hard look at the repercussions of what our good intentions have been. At the same time we should rid ourselves of ill conceived and horrendously biased travel bans that focus on religion and do not even include those countries where terrorists have come to our soil. An absurd ban. But that doesn't mean we do not have issues nor does it mean that the founding fathers were not correct.
Continued below:
Mod
Since the Congress and the Executive Branch have done nothing for years - I am certain that we will not be solving these issues here (lol) but the Federalist Paper 2 inadvertently started bringing these issues up and Madison, Hamilton and Washington have talked a great deal about these problems and what they have suggested and their arguments are being discussed today.
We will continue to go through Federalist 2. What do you think about any of the above? What Jay, Hamilton, Washington and Madison have stated about immigration?
Everyone is entitled to disagree with any of them as well as the moderator's take (smile).
Mod
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 issues, communication limitations were a real concern. The lag of news would cause issues and engender suspicion of the "What the Hell are the Doing Now"? variety. Issues about slavery would did not fly so well in New England. Shipping issues were not identical with producer issues.
Consider the differences between the Articles and the Constitution. There were no real grounds for balance of power issues because there was no executive authority and no federal court system. All representatives were appointed by the states and it required unanimous approval to amend the Articles and eight votes to pass legislation. Voting was by state an the representative was appointed by the state legislatures. The Constitution was vastly different in those respects.
Consider Georgia's and Rohde Island. Georgia appointed three delegates to the First Continental Congress and none showed up. Georgia appointed three to the second Congress and though the all showed up, when the Congress levied a request for funds upon the states to form an army, one of them went home saying this was not what he signed up for. Rhode Island sent no delegates to the Convention which drafted the Constitution, apparently under the misapprehension that it was only called to revise the Articles. This might be taken to mean that there were good reason to believe that some who were tasked with the responsibility of knowing what was going on in government were not up to the task. It might well have been thought too big a task for that time and that place considering the resources available.
Mod
To me the fact that communication was certainly not even close to what it is now - I think was a positive. Boy do I wish I had less of it (lol). In fact, they mentioned that distance actually allowed problems not to mushroom because they had time to dissipate.
I agree with you again on the differences. And even when the Constitution was passed there was a certain length of time when the Senators were not voted for by the people but appointed.
Travel was difficult at best and folks did not even show up on time or in some cases at all. It was a real donnybrook for sure. How Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Jay ever got this show on the road is amazing to me. Honestly, I think most of them were up to the task more than some of the voting public now who do not even show up to vote and if they did would not be informed. Hard to judge - you made some great assessments. Love the part about Georgia and Rhode Island (smile).
Mod
"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties. ¶ Number 6
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states. ¶ Number 7
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer. ¶ Number 8
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration. ¶ Number 9
This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils. ¶ Number 10
Summary:
What Jay is saying here once again is that what unites us is far greater than what divides us.
Now I did say that the founding fathers did not predict the civil war because they felt that the adoption of the Constitution would avoid that. However, Jay did discuss the fact that the states would turn on each other if they all had separate governments and separate interests within these governments.
Jay emphasizes everything that the fledgling country has gone through together. And it is not anybody's fault that the Articles of Confederation considering everything they were going through did not in the final analysis measure up. That was nobody's fault.
But they did the prudent thing and convened the convention to come up with better ideas and this constitution is vastly superior to the Articles of Confederation. And these very intelligent and courageous men during peacetime were able to think clearly and they painstakingly came up with the Constitution that we are trying to ratify now.
And it was agreed to unanimously in their councils.
Mod
Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so. ¶ Number 11
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable. ¶ Number 12
These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience. ¶ Number 13
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness. ¶ Number 14
Publius. [John Jay]
First published in the Wednesday, October 31, 1787 issue of the Independent Journal.
Summary:
Jay indicates that this is just a proposed Constitution and nothing is being forced on anyone but that they should remember how they were once deceived before.
And in the past the people considered that they were being guided by intelligent and patriotic men who were of pure heart and intentions and now these same men are older and wiser and would not lead them astray. In other words, you trusted them once and they are tried and true - so you can trust them again.
And Jay concludes that if other forces prevail which break up this perfect union - "That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness."
Jay ends on a poetic note. But it is quite clear that he is talking about not separating - and to be mindful of foreign force and influence which can be exerted in many ways and forms.
Mod
John Jay was extremely wise in many respects and was as much interested in peace for the United States both abroad and also at home. He regretted the quarrels that he was seeing develop within and between the states.
Gradesaver indicated the following: "Aside from being a strong believer in free government, Jay was a promoter of peace within the United States.
As early as 1779, he regretted that Congress, being instituted mainly for the purpose of opposing the tyranny of Britain and for establishing independence, had no authority to interfere in the particular quarrels of the states.
Two years later, he continued this philosophy by criticizing the constitution of Massachusetts for describing the state "as being in New England, as well as in America," and wrote "perhaps it would be better if these distinctions were permitted to die away."
His biographer relates that Jay even rejoiced that various families were intermarrying with those of other states, because this was conducive to friendship among the states. This essay, therefore, is a natural outgrowth of a long-lived philosophy. Jay was therefore a natural collaborator with Alexander Hamilton.
Discussion Topics:
1. Do you agree with Levinson about the impact of the founding fathers philosophy on immigration discussions today?
2. How do you feel about Jay's arguments that he makes in Federalist 2 about the impact of foreign influence and force?
3. What is Jay warning us about and does it have merit today?
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...
This paper is titled CONCERNING DANGERS FROM FOREIGN FORCE AND INFLUENCE.
This paper was written by John Jay.
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS/PAPERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF A SPOILER THREADS IS THE GLOSSARY
THREAD.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Also, the citation thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Introduction:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...