bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

the federalist papers
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
scrutney
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 1535

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

federalist paper number 4 , and i feel a rousing chorus of "in the navy" coming on:

The Same Subject Continued:
Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence
For the Independent Journal.
JAY

To the People of the State of New York:

MY LAST paper assigned several reasons why the safety of the people would be best secured by union against the danger it may be exposed to by JUST causes of war given to other nations; and those reasons show that such causes would not only be more rarely given, but would also be more easily accommodated, by a national government than either by the State governments or the proposed little confederacies.

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances.

With France and with Britain we are rivals in the fisheries, and can supply their markets cheaper than they can themselves, notwithstanding any efforts to prevent it by bounties on their own or duties on foreign fish.

With them and with most other European nations we are rivals in navigation and the carrying trade; and we shall deceive ourselves if we suppose that any of them will rejoice to see it flourish; for, as our carrying trade cannot increase without in some degree diminishing theirs, it is more their interest, and will be more their policy, to restrain than to promote it.

In the trade to China and India, we interfere with more than one nation, inasmuch as it enables us to partake in advantages which they had in a manner monopolized, and as we thereby supply ourselves with commodities which we used to purchase from them.

The extension of our own commerce in our own vessels cannot give pleasure to any nations who possess territories on or near this continent, because the cheapness and excellence of our productions, added to the circumstance of vicinity, and the enterprise and address of our merchants and navigators, will give us a greater share in the advantages which those territories afford, than consists with the wishes or policy of their respective sovereigns.

Spain thinks it convenient to shut the Mississippi against us on the one side, and Britain excludes us from the Saint Lawrence on the other; nor will either of them permit the other waters which are between them and us to become the means of mutual intercourse and traffic.

From these and such like considerations, which might, if consistent with prudence, be more amplified and detailed, it is easy to see that jealousies and uneasinesses may gradually slide into the minds and cabinets of other nations, and that we are not to expect that they should regard our advancement in union, in power and consequence by land and by sea, with an eye of indifference and composure.

The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country.

As the safety of the whole is the interest of the whole, and cannot be provided for without government, either one or more or many, let us inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever.

One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.

What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?

We have heard much of the fleets of Britain, and the time may come, if we are wise, when the fleets of America may engage attention. But if one national government, had not so regulated the navigation of Britain as to make it a nursery for seamen--if one national government had not called forth all the national means and materials for forming fleets, their prowess and their thunder would never have been celebrated. Let England have its navigation and fleet--let Scotland have its navigation and fleet--let Wales have its navigation and fleet--let Ireland have its navigation and fleet--let those four of the constituent parts of the British empire be be under four independent governments, and it is easy to perceive how soon they would each dwindle into comparative insignificance.

Apply these facts to our own case. Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments--what armies could they raise and pay--what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by its specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquillity and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished? Although such conduct would not be wise, it would, nevertheless, be natural. The history of the states of Greece, and of other countries, abounds with such instances, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened would, under similar circumstances, happen again.

But admit that they might be willing to help the invaded State or confederacy. How, and when, and in what proportion shall aids of men and money be afforded? Who shall command the allied armies, and from which of them shall he receive his orders? Who shall settle the terms of peace, and in case of disputes what umpire shall decide between them and compel acquiescence? Various difficulties and inconveniences would be inseparable from such a situation; whereas one government, watching over the general and common interests, and combining and directing the powers and resources of the whole, would be free from all these embarrassments, and conduce far more to the safety of the people.

But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.

PUBLIUS.
_________________
one man's terrorist is another man's folk hero
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
auntmartymoo



Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 1300

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bieramar wrote:


PoliSci 101 teaches the Anti-Federalist papers in private liberal arts colleges and in many (if not most) state universities across the nation.  



Yep.  My liberal arts college covered Federalists/Anti-Federalists in the introductory classes...and I had already previously studied the subject in high school as well.  And I even helped an 8th-grader at Cathedral Parish School do a paper on the subject about 10 years ago.

But I do agree with Coebul that the focus of political studies tends to be elsewhere.
_________________
wall street is just a symptom of the disease...washington dc is the petri dish that incubated this pandemic  ~ scrutney
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

auntmartymoo wrote:
bieramar wrote:


PoliSci 101 teaches the Anti-Federalist papers in private liberal arts colleges and in many (if not most) state universities across the nation.  



Yep.  My liberal arts college covered Federalists/Anti-Federalists in the introductory classes...and I had already previously studied the subject in high school as well.  And I even helped an 8th-grader at Cathedral Parish School do a paper on the subject about 10 years ago.

But I do agree with Coebul that the focus of political studies tends to be elsewhere.


Just a comment - and not to sidetrack into a separate discussion on private v. public education - but your and my experiences reflect the traditional differences between "high church" (Catholic, Episcopal, Anglican et al) education, and public education beginning c. 1960s.

The "high church" schools' curricula were based upon Thomistic/Aristotelian logic process principles; and traditional historic events including different interpretations and documents -  without the politics-based approvals of textbooks, and compromises of content by appointed/elected officials.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:19 pm    Post subject: Back on track Reply with quote

Federalist 4 really exhibits Jay's strongest attribute as a foreign policy expert.  His analysis of the reasons why different bodies/states initiate war is as valid today as it was in the 18th century - especially now in the 21st century where the political "nation-state" is diminishing in power as the powers of international and transnational movements/pacts (economic, religious, political) increase.  

However to see it in the eyes of the residents in the States, especially New York, in 1787 - after the Constitution was published in its final form after months of debates and changes, as is being addressed in other threads - we must remember it is argument to persuade voting citizens (the 4% of the total population) to support the Constitution which would create a centrally governed Union of United States, as opposed to the individual sovereign states going their own way.

Also to understand the "In the Navy" echoes as we read it we must review exactly what was won by the Revolutionary War.

Following are excerpts from the Treaty of Paris - I include the opening just to show the important element of the belief systems of that era.

---  excerpts ---
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony;...

Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States ... to be free sovereign and independent states,...

Article 2nd:
And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; [detailed geographic boundaries, as addressed generally by Jay in Federalist 4]].

Article 3rd:
It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish.

And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

Article 4th:
It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

Article 5th:
It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States.

And that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail.

And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.

And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

Article 6th:
That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced... and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

Article 7th:
...all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.

Article 8th:
The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

Article 9th:
In case it should so happen that any place or territory ... conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

Article 10th:
The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible,...

Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
D. Hartley
John Adams
B. Franklin
John Jay
--- end excerpts ---

Full text: http://americanhistory.about.com/...utionarywar/a/treaty_of_paris.htm

===

And again, as I've noted in the Constitution writing/debating threads, the central themes and concerns are "the economy," property ownership, financial instruments, regulation of commerce and trade, and balances of power in electing/appointing government decision-makers, in the branches of the federal government, and in the individual States v. United States to insure equitable playing fields for the pursuit of economic happiness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Back on track Reply with quote

bieramar wrote:


And again, as I've noted in the Constitution writing/debating threads, the central themes and concerns are "the economy," property ownership, financial instruments, regulation of commerce and trade, and balances of power in electing/appointing government decision-makers, in the branches of the federal government, and in the individual States v. United States to insure equitable playing fields for the pursuit of economic happiness.
Noted but not accepted by many.   As Scrutney has noted in the past and I agree with, the US Constitution is a set of playing rules that sets up our Government and protects specific rights.  

Pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution and when the framers did include the phrase in the Declaration of Independence little thought was put into the theory of economic happiness.  

The same has happened with the theory of separation of church and state which is not even hinted at in the constitution.  There has been an abuse of Judicial power to read ideas into the document that just are not there.

Allowing one to pursue happiness does not mean as you contend, business must provide a living wage.   Happiness is one of the ambiguous words that can be conscrewed in a multitude of meanings.
_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:23 pm    Post subject: Constitution and Declaration of Independence Reply with quote

coebul wrote:
As Scrutney has noted in the past and I agree with, the US Constitution is a set of playing rules that sets up our Government and protects specific rights.  

Pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution and when the framers did include the phrase in the Declaration of Independence little thought was put into the theory of economic happiness.  

The same has happened with the theory of separation of church and state which is not even hinted at in the constitution.  

Happiness is one of the ambiguous words that can be conscrewed in a multitude of meanings.


The framers and debaters and amenders and voters who made the compromises to the wording of the initially submitted drafts of the Declaration and Constitution were full aware of what they meant.

I agree with you and scrutney that the Constitution is a "set of playing rules that sets up our Government and protects specific rights."  

But the questions posed in the introduction to this Forum are who the men were who defined the specific rights? What were their principles and arguments?  Where did they disagree and where did they (most of them) compromise? Which men had which rights? And which men and women didn't?

We already have four threads with links and quotes extensively exploring the answers to all those questions.  My expressed point was/is in re all four of those threads is "the central themes and concerns are 'the economy,' property ownership, financial instruments, regulation of commerce and trade, and balances of power in electing/appointing government decision-makers, in the branches of the federal government, and in the individual States v. United States to insure equitable playing fields
for the pursuit of economic happiness." That I used a phrase reminiscent of the one used in the Declaration doesn't negate the economic rights so torturously argued in the Constitution threads.

What purposes do you think/believe framed the debates and compromises at the 1787 Convention which re-wrote the Constitution, if not economic justice?

The Declaration included ideas in vogue in 1776 - many of which were deleted from the first draft during the debates then as not majority views of the attendees at that convention - and understanding those ideas are necessary to understand the final approved text of the Constitution.

And to understand both documents, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, debated extensively before being passed on June 6, 1776 opens a portal for our understanding of what they thought:

---

I.
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II.
That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III.
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

IV.
That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

V.
That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

VI.
That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII.
That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

VIII.
That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

IX.
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X.
That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not be granted.

XI.
That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

XII.
That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV.
That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV.
That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI.
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
--- end ---

All of these ideas and beliefs were raised - and re-argued - during the 1787 arguments which we are addressing in the separate Constitution threads.  Some were compromised out, some rejected as not reflective of the majority views, some rejected as pragmatically impossible because of the differing beliefs by the representatives of different States.

But all were considered to be parts of the intellectual quilt of the Constitution which finally was sewn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the recap of what was written and your interpretations.  

Quote:
the Virginia Declaration of Rights, debated extensively before being passed on June 6, 1776 opens a portal for our understanding of what they thought:


One state one set of thoughts.  Jefferson (the author/writer) had several thoughts on the Declaration of Independence but was not part of the US Constitution he was in France at the time.  Some point out that he had several correspondences with Madison (one of the authors) but in the day of months between mail from Europe and USA one wonders how much input Jefferson actually had.  

Another point you should consider, the US Constitution use the Mass Constitution as a pattern.  John Adams had significant input into this document.  

Quote:
they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Except for Slaves that is.  bieramar you can't actually believe these intellectuals gave diddely about the peasant working class.  

By the way I was raised in VA and studied it's politics for most of my life until and through college and since to a lesser degree.
_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:15 pm    Post subject: Federalist Five - Jay writing as Publius Reply with quote

Federalist no. 5

The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence)
Jay for the Independent Journal.
To the People of the State of New York:

QUEEN ANNE, in her letter of the 1st July, 1706, to the Scotch Parliament, makes some observations on the importance of the UNION then forming between England and Scotland, which merit our attention. I shall present the public with one or two extracts from it:
"An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interest, will be enabled to resist all its enemies."
"We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion, being the only effectual way to secure our present and future happiness, and disappoint the designs of our and your enemies, who will doubtless, on this occasion, use their utmost endeavors to prevent or delay this union."

It was remarked in the preceding paper, that weakness and divisions at home would invite dangers from abroad; and that nothing would tend more to secure us from them than union, strength, and good government within ourselves. This subject is copious and cannot easily be exhausted.

The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them. Although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another.

Notwithstanding their true interest with respect to the continental nations was really the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their mutual jealousies were perpetually kept inflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome than they were useful and assisting to each other.

Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being "joined in affection" and free from all apprehension of different "interests," envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.

The most sanguine advocates for three or four confederacies cannot reasonably suppose that they would long remain exactly on an equal footing in point of strength, even if it was possible to form them so at first; but, admitting that to be practicable, yet what human contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality?

Independent of those local circumstances which tend to beget and increase power in one part and to impede its progress in another, we must advert to the effects of that superior policy and good management which would probably distinguish the government of one above the rest, and by which their relative equality in strength and consideration would be destroyed.

For it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence, and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of these confederacies for a long succession of years.

Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good-will and kind conduct more speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied.

The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable that the most Northern of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very distant, be unquestionably more formidable than any of the others. No sooner would this become evident than the northern hive would excite the same ideas and sensations in the more southern parts of America which it formerly did in the southern parts of Europe. Nor does it appear to be a rash conjecture that its young swarms might often be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbors.

They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., formidable only to each other.

From these considerations it appears that those gentlemen are greatly mistaken who suppose that alliances offensive and defensive might be formed between these confederacies, and would produce that combination and union of wills of arms and of resources, which would be necessary to put and keep them in a formidable state of defense against foreign enemies.

When did the independent states, into which Britain and Spain were formerly divided, combine in such alliance, or unite their forces against a foreign enemy? The proposed confederacies will be distinct nations. Each of them would have its commerce with foreigners to regulate by distinct treaties; and as their productions and commodities are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different. Different commercial concerns must create different interests, and of course different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations. Hence it might and probably would happen that the foreign nation with whom the southern confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom the northern confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship. An alliance so contrary to their immediate interest would not therefore be easy to form, nor, if formed, would it be observed and fulfilled with perfect good faith.

Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect.

Let candid men judge, then, whether the division of America into any given number of independent sovereignties would tend to secure us against the hostilities and improper interference of foreign nations.

Publius
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember that Jay's Federalist Papers 2 thru 5 (previously posted here) were arguments to convince voters to ratify the Constitution, as its wording about Armies, Navies, militias and respective powers had been approved and published by the Constitutional Convention in September 1787.

The arguments on these matters of defense in the Convention began on May 29th, the 2nd day after the rules of debate were approved, and intermittently appeared during the following months.  But it wasn't until August 17th that formal questions were raised and votes taken.

It wasn't just defense against foreign nations on/across the seas that was of concern. It was also defense against civil insurrection (like Shay's Rebellion the year before), and Indian attacks on the frontiers.

Most of the delegates had either fought in the Revolutionary War, or were in state or federal congresses during it - or both/all - so their existential experiences were debated, not theories.  They all came to the Convention with the shared idea that local, state and national security was the primary reason for government (governing the negative attributes of human nature), and they all acknowledged the flaws of the Confederation and the Continental Army.  They all hated military dictatorships.

Both the Virginia and Pinckney Plans (see the "Process" thread) pushed for federal authority over defenses against international and domestic threats. A regular Army and Navy was needed to avoid the economic disruption caused when the citizen militia was called to fight, as happened during the Revolutionary War.

Then on August 17, challenges were made to the clauses in Article I which enumerated the powers of the federal government (as posted in the other threads).

An example from the Convention diary of August 17th illustrates the deliberative process:
----
ISSUE
"To subdue a rebellion in any State, on the application of its legislature."  

Mr. PINKNEY moved to strike out "on the application of its legislature"
Mr. Govr. MORRIS 2ds.
Mr. L. MARTIN opposed it as giving a dangerous & unnecessary power. The consent of the State ought to precede the introduction of any extraneous force whatever.
Mr. MERCER supported the opposition of Mr. Martin.
Mr. ELSEWORTH proposed to add after "legislature" "or Executive."
Mr. Govr. MORRIS. The Executive may possibly be at the head of the Rebellion. The Genl. Govt. should enforce obedience in all cases where it may be necessary.
Mr. ELSEWORTH. In many cases The Genl. Govt. ought not to be able to interpose, unless called upon. He was willing to vary his motion so as to read, "or without it when the legislature cannot meet."
Mr. GERRY was agst. letting loose the myrmidons of the U. States on a State without its own consent. The States will be the best Judges in such cases. More blood would have been spilt in Massts. in the late insurrection, if the Genl. authority had intermeddled.
Mr. LANGDON was for striking out as moved by Mr. Pinkney. The apprehension of the national force, will have a salutary effect in preventing insurrections.
Mr. RANDOLPH. If the Natl. Legislature is to judge whether the State legislature can or cannot meet, that amendment would make the clause as objectionable as the motion of Mr. Pinkney.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS. We are acting a very strange part. We first form a strong man to protect us, and at the same time wish to tie his hands behind him, The legislature may surely be trusted with such a power to preserve the public tranquility.

On the motion to add "or without it [application] when the legislature cannot meet"  
N. H. ay. Mas. no. Ct. ay. Pa. divd. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. divd. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.  So agreed to-

Mr. MADISON and Mr. DICKENSON moved to insert as explanatory, after "State"- "against the Government thereof" There might be a rebellion agst. the U. States-which was Agreed to nem. con.

On the clause as amended N. H. ay. Mas  abst. Ct. ay. Pen. abst. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Georg. ay-so it was lost.
---

A second debate on the same day, was on the power "to make war."  Debate summaries from the Diary are here:
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp

The next day the "standing Army" rhetoric raised the hackles of Washington and the Revolutionary War veterans, and the "Militia Clause" got everyone involved, so the matter was sent to committee.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_818.asp

The committee reported out a compromised balance of power clause with the federal government instituting "laws for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the United States."

On August 20 the delegates began debating the merits and flaws of militias and armies - must reads for anyone who wants to understand how those Founders viewed Militias; later after the Constitution was ratified to be raised again as the proposed 2nd Amendment was sent to the States for separate ratification: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_820.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_821.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_822.asp


On August 23 the final votes on military matters were taken.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_823.asp


As ratified, the Constitution addresses military defense matters at Article I, Sections 6, 7, 8 and 10, and Article II, Section 2.  The Army, Navy, and Militia are structured with checks and balances - the federal "standing Army" regular military for immediate defense checked by civilian control, 2-year maximum funding from the House, and senior officer approval by the Senate; and balanced also by states appointing the officers and training the Militia for their (the States') own purposes and for the federal "reserves."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
scrutney
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 1535

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

whoops...sorry.
i thought i had already posted feds #5.
i've read it recently (in the past 3 or 4 days) so the only possible reason that i can think of that kept me from posting it was...i got distracted.
1 wife
2 kids.
3 cats.
no living room furniture.
taking down the christmas tree.
busy busy busy.
just sayin'.



_________________
one man's terrorist is another man's folk hero
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> We the People All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum