Archive for the ‘Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project’ Category

« Older Entries

April 28, 2010 – Federalist No. 1 – Cathy Gillespie

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

We made it to the Federalist Papers! I hope you are as excited as I am to dive into these fascinating op-eds – the media and PR campaign for the Constitution! I am travelling today  – (Howdy from Texas!) And typing in the dark, in a hotel room in Austin, trying not to wake my daughter. So, please forgive the brevity of tonight’s post.

Federalist 1 is striking to me in that Alexander Hamilton’s view of the gravity of the crossroads America was at, is clear to him in a way that is rare for someone in the midst of current events of their time.  Looking back, with a 222 year perspective on the situation, it is easy to agree that had the States failed to ratify the new Constitution, it would most certainly have been a loss for mankind.  But for Hamilton to have the vision to see that, at the starting gate of the United States’ journey into the world, reveals him to be a visionary of the highest magnitude.

This quote near the beginning of Federalist #1 sums up the precipice the United States was teetering on:

“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”

Hamilton’s support of civil political discourse also resonated with me:

“Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.”

This is the nature of man, and we can see that not much has changed in 222 years! But Hamilton is right about the ineffectiveness of angry discourse. Both  ends of the politcal spectrum were guilty of this in Hamilton’s era, just as some on both sides still utilize these tactics today. It is so refreshing and much more educational when political discussions can be had without anger and personal attacks.

I look forward to the coming 84 days.  I am embarking upon this journey with fresh eyes, having never read the Federalist from cover to cover, despite having a degree in Political Science! To think back to the days before the internet, Twitter, or Facebook, before 24 hour cable news, before radio, when communication by the spoken and written word (on real paper) was the only means of spreading a message, it is enthralling to read these papers and witness an 18th Century PR campaign, and to be able to look deeper into some of the founding fathers’ thoughts, values, principles and world views, as they set about to shape our Nation.

Good night!

Cathy Gillespie

7 Responses to “April 28, 2010 – Federalist No. 1 – Cathy Gillespie”

  1. Not much has changed in 222 years? I’d say not much has changed in 50,000 years. One of my favorite movies is ‘Quest for Fire’, set back then. They’re just like us, with slightly less technology. And if you watch it, you will see the world’s first joke! (It involves a coconut.)

  2. Dale says:

    I am playing catch up as I have missed some reading “making a living” like each of us must do. To reflect back, these writers and framers of the US Constitution and the Federalist papers too, were people of business and commerce first. They were not career politicians with a guaranteed pay check from government/ you and I. What a unique perspective they brought to their thinking and actions compared to our present, so called leaders. They were scholars and statesmen with an outstanding view of the past, able to reflect their understanding into the present. Now, in our humble study of their great acts, may we spread the knowledge and fever of faith through out this great land.

  3. Kay says:

    Just bought my paperback copy of The Federalist Papers, and started underlining and taking notes. Hamilton, as Cathy noted, knew human nature, our passions, for good or ill, and acknowledges them. I like that…honesty about human nature.

  4. Kellie says:

    I have tried to read the Federalist Papers before, and had a hard time, mostly due to the language, it can be hard to follow. I am so thankful that Ms Turner and others have taken on this assignment for America, it is so vital that we understand the thoughts and theories that our founding fathers took into account while building our great nation. These blogs will help me better understand these theories and thoughts, and I think I will enjoy reading these papers much more than before. I agree with Kay’s post, in that is it fascinating how Hamilton began his papers with his emphasis on human nature and our passions as a people. I hope someday we can find leaders in this country who know and understand that and will be willing to fix what has broken.

  5. Rich_H says:

    I think the entire first paragraph could be applied to the American people today, with minor modifications, in an appeal to once again consider the importance of our Constitution:

    AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on [the] Constitution [of] the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of [a country] in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of [maintaining a] good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to [watch a good government system be undone by political contrivance] and force [by men of ill will towards freedom]. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

    Hamilton sure nailed this one: “that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.”

    How many times has the left abused the word “rights” to find what does not exist in the Constitution? From the right to privacy to justify abortions to the right to other peoples money (redistribution), health care, housing, etc.

  6. David Hamilton says:

    I too find myself late at the starting line, but I am committed now to catching up.

    I as well have to confess to owning a well “dog eared”, annotated, and coffee stained copy of the “Federalist Papers”, that I also have made previous forays into with the intended goal of a complete reading of these editorial pieces, editorial pieces that in fact are the detailed instructions that supplement the “Quick Start Guide” that is our Constitution.

    Many people express a level of frustration with understanding the writing style of the authors of these pieces. Despite being a prolific reader, I admit to having to stop and reread passages and dwell on them to gain a thorough understanding of their intent.

    Bearing in mind that these founding documents, The Declaration of independence, these Federalist Papers, and most especially The Constitution itself, were written not for any specific, highly educated body of people, but for the whole body of the people, to read, understand, and live by. It is a shocking display of the level of degradation of our usage and understanding of our own language, and the causes of this degradation being at least as vital, albeit separate, a topic for discussion as the documents themselves.

    Specifically addressing Federalist #1, I find myself struck with the sense that our Constitutional Republic has been under assault from within by Madison’s dreaded factions, from the beginning.
    From The “Alien and Sedition Acts” of John Adams, to the crippling of States Rights of Lincoln, on to the socialist policies of FDR, and now mandated health care.

    The current struggle to “restore” our constitutional republic is one the founders would little doubt readily recognize, but would certainly be flabbergasted by the extent to which civil discourse, and honorable intent has deteriorated.

  7. Tim Shey says:

    Back in 1994 I read the first 200 pages of “The Federalist Papers”.

    I “discovered” this website this past week–Jim Best sent me an email telling me about Constituting America. This looks like an excellent website. I am looking forward to reading more of it.

    I believe the U.S. Constitution was inspired by the Holy Ghost. It seems like the great leaders of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and the great intellectuals were Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson.

Posted in Federalist Paper 01, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Cathy Gillespie | No Comments »

April 28, 2010 – Federalist No. 1 – Janine Turner

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Howdy from Texas. Speaking of Texas, be sure to watch tonight’s behind the scene Video Podcast! I filmed it at my ranch with Juliette. It’s fun.

So today is our first day of the Federalist! Federalist Paper #1 by the brilliant Alexander Hamilton! I wrote about his mother, Rachel Lavien Fawcett in my book, “Holding Her Head High.” Historians have not been very kind to her, but read my version. It is from a woman’s point of view. There is no doubt that she planted the seeds of greatness, determination and an entrepreneurial spirit in Alexander’s character.

I want to thank Horace Cooper for writing our wonderful essay today! Thanks, Horace. I love the quote from Benjamin Franklin when asked by a woman, “What have you given us?” and Benjamin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

This is our challenge today. We must step forward and stand up for our founding principles and demand that our Republic be vital and strong and that our Constitution be protected preserved and defended. The best way for us to do this is with a basis of knowledge about our country’s thesis. How lucky we are that it is so well documented in copious documents and books – the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and The Federalist being the foundation. (We will have to continue our scholastic adventure – the same forum with different documents and books!)

I hope you read today’s reading of the Federalist with your children and/or loved one and don’t forget to sign your children up for our contests! The high school students get a trip to Philadelphia, an appearance on Governor Huckabee’s show and $2000.00 scholarships – and we have cool categories such as: best short film, best hip song, best PSA and best essay about how the Constitution is relevant today! Spread the word. Entries due July 4th!

Speaking of relevant today, we are going to be amazed at the relevancy of the Federalist papers. For those who think the Constitution is antiquated and obsolete, I dare them to read the Federalist papers with us!!

The first thing that I love is that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay came together for the good of the country. They did not agree on many things, and later became quite divided, but they united to accomplish the magnificent miracle of the Constitution and “The Federalist.” They saw the bigger picture and were able to forfeit their egos to better their country – and they had vision! They had vision and wisdom and determination and a sense of service. Great qualities that I dare say all of you have who are participating in our National Conversational/Blog Reading!

Another thing that I love is that they wrote it under the name of Publius after Publius Valerius, a founder of the Roman Republic. A Republic. They knew that they all had reputations that proceeded them for better or worse and they did not want the objectivity of their thesis to be tainted by preconceived notions. Smart. These men were very smart and they truly loved the United States of America.

This is what it’s going to take to awaken, educate and propel Americans to undertake the journey of Constituting America – a love for the United States of America and all she embodies – nobility, greatness of character, philanthropic communities with a genius for creativity and a gut for survival. We have a Republic and God save the ones who try to strip American’s of our inherent rights, rights that exist in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and embody Americans today. God bless America.

And God bless our forefathers who sacrificed so much for their posterity – all of the great men and women who have fought throughout our history to maintain our dignity, freedom and inalienable rights.

Blessings and goodnight!

Tomorrow it’s Federalist Paper #2!

Janine Turner

6 Responses to “April 28, 2010 – Federalist No. 1 – Janine Turner”

  1. I agree that once we are done with the Federalist Papers we should keep on going with other documents. Maybe the Anti-Federalist papers would be a good choice. I can’t say for sure, not having read them myself yet.

    But the Federalist Papers argued for a central government strong enough to be able to protect our country and be effective. That was in a time when the opposition wanted a more limited government, which might not have been much better than the government provided in the Articles of Confederation.

    Now our situation is different. Our government is much too large and has power over far too many aspects of our lives. It ignores our will, violates many principles that we and the founding fathers hold dear, and takes actions which weaken and endanger us.

    Maybe the arguments presented in the Anti-Federalist Papers would apply today.

  2. Susan Craig says:

    I will second Harry’s motion to do an reading of the con side to this argument!

  3. Louis Palermo says:

    Federalist #1 Excellent!!!!!!!!

  4. Louis Palermo says:

    Federalist #2 Excellent!!!!!

  5. Fredda R. Wigder says:

    I would sincerely doubt that the authors of the Federalist papers envisioned the type of big, bloated Federal Government that we have today. I have difficulty believing that they would have been in favor of that.

  6. Jesse Vardaman says:

    The founders would not be in favor the bloated government we have today. They were definitely against any form of government that tread on the inherent rights of its people. And they would definitely be aghast at the blatant disregard that our current representatives show for our Constitution and Bill of Rights today.

    As Janine quoted Ben Franklin, and I will repeat here. ” A republic if you can keep it.”

    Can we keep it America?

    “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” – Ben Franklin

Posted in Federalist Paper 01, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Janine Turner | No Comments »

April 28, 2010 – Federalist No. 1, General Introduction, For the Independent Journal (Hamilton) – Guest Blogger: Horace Cooper, Legal Commentator and Director of the Institute for Liberty’s Center for Law and Regulation

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

The Federalist Papers were written from 1787 to 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.   They were published in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution that had been crafted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.  Numbering 85, the essays outlined the ways the new federal government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. Each of the essays were signed “PUBLIUS” and they remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the United States Constitution.

Hamilton opens Federalist #1 with an introduction of the present state of affairs in the then existing United States of America and his plan to explain over a series of Papers why the new federal government created by the U.S. Constitution was necessary.  Premised in his argument is a fundamental foundation upon which our system of government is based — self-government or rule by the consent of the governed.  From its inception our Constitution’s validity was tied to the notion that formal acceptance and ratification by the people and the state legislatures was necessary in order to be legitimate.  Our Constitution was neither self-enacting nor imposed from a ruler.

At the time of the writing of Federalist #1 the United States of America is governed by the Articles of Confederation. Drafted by the Second Continental Congress in 1776, the Articles of Confederation had been submitted to the states for ratification in November of 1777.

As outlined by the Continental Congress, the federal government by 1787 had the authority to make war, negotiate diplomatic agreements and treaties, and acquire and oversee new territories that had not yet become full-fledged states.

However, by the time of the Philadelphia Convention that year many of the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation were obvious.  The government created by the Articles was incapable of providing the authority and power needed to be a fully functioning authority. Instead of a division of authority among three separate branches, the federal government exercised all of its authority through a unicameral legislature called the Congress of Confederation.   Ironically, such a concentration of power masked the overall weakness of the federal government.

In order to change or amend the Articles, it required unanimous approval of the states.  This standard made making any changes or reforms nearly impossible.  The federal government had no power to tax and as such could not meet even its most basic financial responsibilities.  A threshold requirement that nine of 13 states approve major laws passed by the Congress limited the ability of Congress to act on any but the most uncontroversial matters.  In addition, it is significant that the Articles provided no authority for Congress to resolve conflicts between the states or to set up countrywide rules to encourage merchants and commerce.

Hamilton along with many other of our Founders recognized that if the United States was ever to become an economic powerhouse capable of defending itself from enemies without and within it was essential that the changes proposed in the Constitution were adopted.  You see it was not simply dumb luck that we have this national charter.  Now more than 200 years later we Americans share in the legacy created by these men and women who had such foresight and wisdom.

The Philadelphia Convention convened in May of 1787 and did not finish until September.  When the convention finished Delegate Benjamin Franklin was approached by a woman.  She asked Mr. Franklin, “What have you given us?  A monarchy or a republic?”  He famously replied, “A republic…if you can keep it.”  Therein lies our task as citizens today.

Horace Cooper is a Legal Commentator and Director of the Institute for Liberty’s Center for Law and Regulation

47 Responses to “April 28, 2010 – Federalist No. 1, General Introduction, For the Independent Journal (Hamilton) – Guest Blogger: Horace Cooper, Legal Commentator and Director of the Institute for Liberty’s Center for Law and Regulation”

  1. Peter says:

    It is particularly interesting to me that Hamilton and Madison, who worked so well together to produce the Constitution and see it through to ratification, later became the driving force behind the first two political parties (The Federalists & The Jeffersonian-Republicans, which today are known as the Democrats). United in the cause of bringing the nation into being, they later split over the direction it should take.

    It would be interesting to see how–and if–the differences that later developed between are foreshawdowed in The Federalist Papers. Perhaps some of the experts could build that analysis into their commentaries as the series moves forward.

  2. Lillian Harvey says:

    “…it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

    I wonder how Mr. Hamilton would feel about the “power grab” enacted on the backs of the American people in the form of “Healthcare *access through mandated insurance purchase*” as an Individual Right? He certainly didn’t think much of the “rights” of people over the “firmness and efficiency” of government.

    It is clear that the anti-Federalists had a reason to be nervous for the future of our country and establishing a federal system without a clear delineation between the rights of individuals and the powers granted to government by those individuals. Without that rich debate, would we have ever gained the deep appreciation for the liberty and prosperity that was possible as this country grew? To even think that modern day Progressivism is in anyway aligned with the thinking of either of these schools of thought is absurd, imho. How far away they are from what the Founders were talking about and doing.

    Do our selected leaders of today really understand how far this process has strayed? I feel there are tricks and tyrants afoot.

    Are you all as blown away by what you are reading as I am? I studied these documents in school, of course. But I feel like I am finally understanding them because there are such contrasting ideas being practiced in our government today. Process is everything. I understand why these 1st Principles were adopted and why they fought so hard to enact them. Time to restore the Republic to 1st principles. No pain, no gain.

  3. Will says:

    @Lillian Harvey
    Yes, I’m pretty much blown away by understanding the deeper meanings in these documents. Until this project I never really understood how things like Social Security, Medicare and parts of the health reform bill really *are* unconstitutional, and should be abolished.

  4. Lillian Harvey says:

    @Will
    Finding the reset button is one thing, but pushing it is another. Each day, I’m finding more courage to accept the consequences of doing just that. There are more of us to convince that we are on the wrong track and there will be sacrifices to get us straight. Projects like this one are our best hope to help us make the necessary case through educated and considered argument against the legislative waste passed for the “good of the people”.
    Donna had a great description of how the study of case law and rulings on precedents rather than original intent has assisted in getting us off track. Being able to see legislative proposals through the principles laid out in the Constitution demonstrates that most have no place being enacted at the Federal level. There is so much bloat in the Executive as a result. Of course “Washington is broken”. This structure was not designed to carry that extraordinary and unnecessary weight.

  5. Susan Craig says:

    From Ecclesiastes “There is nothing new under the sun”. It continues to amaze me at the well rounded understanding of the human condition that our Founding Fathers had. How our ‘education’ has failed us.

  6. Carolyn Attaway says:

    I made the comment to my husband last night, that since I started reading the Constitution again through this series, watching the news took on a complete new dimension. Listening to Congressmen discuss the Immigration Laws and the Goldman Sachs debacle, I am realizing that many have no idea what they are talking about. Congressman and newscasters alike are saying things like ‘This Law Makes it a Crime to be an Illegal Immigrant’. I had to clean out my ears when I heard that one. Surely I was mistaken. Sadly, I wasn’t.

    And I could have cried when I heard the congressmen grilling Goldman Sachs CEO’s. They had no idea what they were asking, and could not understand the answers. Don’t get me wrong. I do not believe Goldman Sachs is an innocent victim in this mess, but the dog and pony shows our Congress puts on is embarrassing. And it’s all for political gain. I find it hard to believe they will prosecute Goldman Sachs; just like passing an immigration law, it is to dangle the carrot in front of unsuspecting voters for the November election.

    Our country burns, while our Congress fiddles. I wonder if Benjamin Franklin knew how prophectic his words would be.

    On another note, I find it interesting that all the letters are signed PUBLIUS. Publius was the “Chief man of the Island of Malta” mentioned in Acts 28:7 (Another proof that our founders read the Bible). How appropriate that they used the name of the man who entertained Paul and his companions while they were shipwrecked on Malta, and were seeking a permenant place of residence. Paul and his companions stayed on the island until the stormy season had passed. Could our founders have felt that same way in trying to ratify the proposed Constitution? I find this very interesting and it sheds a new light on this process for me.

  7. Carolyn Attaway says:

    I forgot to add on my previous post, that I believe with Knowledge comes Responsibility. As we read and discuss the Constitution and Federalist Papers, we are being charged with passing what we learn to others. No more couch activists! If we are to help restore our country, we must step into it. Finding the perfect balance between teaching and not preaching, will be a challenge for me, I know. But I heard a great piece of advice that other day on the radio. The talk show host was talking to a priest who works out west. The priest said the difference between liberals and conservatives, is that liberals use their emotions for their arguments, while conservatives use facts. When dealing with feelings, one must tread carefully.

  8. Shannon Castleman says:

    Carolyn, right on. agree with you that Goldman Sach’s is not a Saint. However, if my Economics degree taught me anything, it is this: They have the right to short an invenstment just as we have the right to wait for that new pair of jeans to go on sale. (That is basically ‘shorting’ the position.)

    If people are wise stewards of their money, and diversify their investments like the BIBLE commands, they really wouldn’t be hurt by one bad apple.

  9. Susan Craig says:

    My ‘couch’ efforts have included posting the days revelation on my local news station’s blog site and calling the HS principle and ensuring that the HS was aware of the educational tools and contest available for his students.

  10. Maggie says:

    I, too, am embarrassed at the debacle going on with the grilling of Goldman Sachs…especially since the one doing most of the grilling (and using profanity) is from my district. I agree that those doing the grilling have no idea what they are talking about. Yes, something needs to be done about reigning in Wallstreet but how and at what cost? The government itself is up to its eyeballs in the cause of the financial mess we are in. Our founders KNEW that humans crave and seek power and that power corrupts (“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”….John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton). That is exactly why they were so careful in their drafting of our Constitution and the follow up Federalist papers. The government was not MEANT to be Big Brother. Their “powers” were meant to be very limited. Government is neccessary to prevent anarchy, but “we the people” are the ones in power (alteast we are supposed to be).

  11. Robert Shanbaum says:

    What a curious commentary on Federalist #1! Mr. Cooper, could you have written less about the actual content of Hamilton’s essay?

    The bulk of the essay is not about government at all. It opens and closes with a bit about the importance of the decision. But in the middle five paragraphs, Hamilton gets to his main purpose, which is to “poison the well” – to try to bias the reader against the other side, which Hamilton expects to rise in opposition to the new Consititution, before he has a chance to speak. Look at the litany of characteristics that the opponents will have: “ambition, avarice, personal animosity…” They will have some personal interest in the preservation of more powerful state governments (“…power, emoluments, and consequences of the offices…”). Essentially, it’s an exercise in mudslinging – but it’s the most elegant and dignified mudslinging since Marc Antony’s eulogy in Julius Caesar.

    Federalist #1 doesn’t shed much light on the Constitution at all, except to the extent that it sheds light on the way politics worked in the Eighteenth Century. And when I read the following, in which Hamilton predicts how his adversaries will behave, I can’t help but think, this could have been written yesterday:

    “A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.”

  12. Robert Shanbaum says:

    Lillian, you do realize, do you not, that when Hamilton wrote that “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people”, he was referring to people whom he expected would oppose the Constitution by arguing that it would give the government too much power to infringe on people’s rights? You realize, don’t you, that those people – the ones who argue that they’re interested in “the rights of the people” – those are the bad guys in Hamilton’s narrative?

    The good guys here, according to Hamilton, are the ones who promote the virtues of a government having “firmness and efficiency”.

    I ask because in your comment immediately following the citation, it sure looks like you could be positioning yourself as one of Hamilton’s bad guys when you argue that the government’s actions are a “power grab enacted on the backs of the American people.” That sounds to me like it could be characterized as a “zeal for the rights of the people.” Whether one would see it as a “specious mask” of the same is probably a matter of one’s political persuasion.

    You might want to read a little more about Hamilton. He’s something of a problem for those who are seeking support in the Constitution for de minimis government. In the Philadelphia Convention, for example, he proposed a centralized government in which the former states were stripped of their sovereignty altogether. (Importantly, to give you comfort, he did not prevail, obviously).

    Elsewhere in these blogs, Hamilton was referred to as “evil” because he favored centralized, powerful government (which he did indeed, to a greater degree than any modern progressive of whom I’m aware). But whether you like his politics or not, he was in fact one of the framers of the Constitution, and he apparently saw sufficient comportment (dare I say, “potential comportment”) between it and his politics to allow him to go to the trouble of working for its ratification by writing these articles.

    To answer your question about how Mr. Hamilton would feel about your alleged “power grab”, I’d say, he would be perfectly alright with it.

    On that same topic, it may interest you to know that in 1798, the fifth Congress created the Marine Hospital Fund, which established a network of federally-run hospitals along the eastern seaboard to care for sailors and seamen, financed by a federal tax on their wages of twenty cents per month. That system persisted into the 1980’s. I think that in addition to what the Founders and Framers wrote, it’s instructive to look at what they did.

  13. David Hathaway says:

    My interest in the Federalist Papers was begun when I read the recent biography of Alexander Hamilton, written by Ron Chernow. It was an interesting read, especially since Hamilton went on to found and The First Bank of The United States, the first Fed. I highly recommend this book.

    I’m sorry that I have delayed reading the Federalist Papers for so long. Thanks for the guided opportunity to make up for lost time.

  14. Karen Sherer says:

    I LOVE this opportunity to really refresh my understanding of the roots of our wonderful country by reading and blogging with all of you about the Constitution and the Federalist Papers! I’ve never blogged before so I was excited to finally find a topic I could respond to that offers something new and, perhaps, worthwhile. @ Carolyn Attaway: you provide so much food for thought, and maybe Madison did name Publius from the Publius of the Acts of the Apostles as the author of the Federalist Papers but the edition I am using had an insightful introduction by a man named Charles A. Kessler. He wrote that Publius Valerius Publicola was instrumental in establishing the republic of Rome. He called Publius the founder and savior of Rome and that Plutarch compares and contrasts this man with Solon the democratic lawgiver of Athens in “Parallel Lives”. Kessler wrote that Hamilton named the author of the papers “Publius” to trump the anti-federalists who were using “Cato” and Brutus” (also heroes of the Roman republic) as pseudonyms for their anti-federalist papers.
    Also @Carolyn: I hope to end my career as a “couch activist” as I become more able to defend my political belief with facts. And I also heard that interview on talk radio about the difference between liberals and conservatives and I find that really true.

  15. Carolyn Attaway says:

    @Susan – Great “couch” activities! I didn’t even think about the local news station blog. Good idea.

    @Shannon and Maggie – I for one am glad that the GOP has stopped the Financial Reform from getting to the floor for debate. I do not trust this Congress with Financial Reform, especially since they will not even address Fannie and Freddie, or want to put more bailouts for Big Banks in this bill. That just scratches the surface. I would love for this Senate to stop anything from going through until after the election AND they address spending!

    And the Founders had it right about Congress should not be a full time job. I cannot even begin to describe my emotions when I heard Tim Geithner comment “I never had a real job”. Doesn’t that spike confidence in his abilities to help the ‘real’ world?

  16. Carolyn Attaway says:

    @Karen – Awesome piece about Publius Valerius Publicola. I find it intriguing that the name Publius is close to the word Public, which can be defined as people constituting a community, state, or nation, or a particular group of people with a common interest, aim. I am really enjoying learning so much from everyone’s input about our founding documents.

    The hardest thing I have found about getting off the couch so far is pulling my friends with me.

  17. Thomas Soyars says:

    While true when written this part may be even more true today:

    “It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”

  18. Ron Meier says:

    At my church, we are having a sermon series titled “Get off your donkey.” It is based on the story of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:34, who got off his donkey to serve his fellow man, even though the injured man was one others, including priests, avoided and refused to help. In like manner, by following this program, we should have the courage to get off our donkeys, armed with the knowledge of what our founders wanted this great country to be, and be ready to “fight the good fight, keep the faith, and finish the race,” 2 Timothy 4:7. We have a lot of work to do, and it’s time to get off our own donkeys and force our leaders to get back on the track our founders placed us on more than 200 years ago. The tea parties are a good start, but only a start. Remember what Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing.”

  19. Ron Meier says:

    And, thanks to Janine and Cathy for getting this going! Two women who listened to Burke and got off their donkeys.

  20. Ron Meier says:

    Interesting comment when Hamilton says: “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” It’s interesting to me that much of the rhetoric in DC today is supposedly based on making everything better for everyone other than the wealthy; it seems that this is a ruse to convince the people that having more government will make this happen, when the ultimate end game is to maximize control over the majority of the people. 50% don’t pay income taxes now; if the Administration and Congress can move that up to 70% or so, then they’ll have the people right where they want them.

  21. Jesse says:

    As I finished Federalist 1, I concluded that it set out the plan for the series of essays, what was to be discussed, and tried to debunk one of the first objections – that the individual states are better off without being under the umbrella of a nation.

    My personal belief is in line with Federalist 1 – America is a great country because of its ability to bring the talents, resources, opinions and people of the individual states together while allowing the states to experiment and maintain their individuality.

  22. Andy Sparks says:

    Carolyn,

    The Publius pseudonym used by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay was named for the Roman Consul Publius Valerius Publicola who supposedly helped form the Roman Republic. He lived around 500BC, well before the birth of Christ.

  23. Melanie says:

    How impressive you all are in your commentaries! I suspect the only thing our Founding Fathers would be proud of and respect today (were they to awaken to our current state) would be the new rebirth of patriotic activism, the passionate rediscovering of our heritage, and the determination of Americans to restore our great republic to it’s true form of constitutionally limited government of, by, and for The People.

    Lillian rightly appreciates how wise our Founders were in their understanding of human nature, and how delicate and difficult to maintain a limited government would be. I can never get over the profound wisdom of our Founders in that they not only understood the nature of their righteous endeavor, but they understood how unique in the annals of all human history their undertaking was! They were IN the moment, and they KNEW they were in the moment. How grand! Lillian, it does just blow one away.

  24. Chuck Plano, Tx says:

    Carolyn here is a question, if to become a naturalized citizen you must be able “to speak, write and read words in the English Language in their common usage” and it is violation of the law to vote if you are not a citizen, why do we need to print voting ballots in any language but English and provide interperters at voting places as is required by the Voting Rights Act of 1964? Is it because we knowing allow People who are not Citizens to vote?? I have ask this question of Congressmen in the past and have never received an answer.

  25. Shannon Castleman says:

    Chuck, great point. As a matter of fact, that is the main reason Obama and his ilk are against the AZ law-because many of their voting base will leave. The Democrats have to rely on illegal votes/ACORN tactics/the Black Panthers with their bats at a voting place in Philly, etc. to win an election.

    They cannot win on the merits of the debate.

  26. Carolyn Attaway says:

    @Chuck – That is a good question. I do believe all official tests, such as citizenship, driver’s licenses, voting, etc, all should be in English. But keep in mind, there are many in Congress who do not want to make English the official language of the United States. As a matter of fact, do we even have an offical language yet?

    According to Congress.Org – ’2/26/2009–Introduced.National Language Act of 2009 – Makes English the official language of the U.S. government. Requires the government to: (1) conduct its official business in English, including publications, income tax forms, and informational materials; and (2) preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language of the United States of America. Provides that no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the government act, communicate, perform, or provide services or’
    Bill # H.R.1229

    Original Sponsor:
    Peter King (R-NY 3rd)

    Cosponsor Total: 31
    (last sponsor added 04/21/2010)
    1 Democrats
    30 Republicans

    Only 31 sponsors, pretty amazing huh?

  27. Horace Cooper says:

    Several commenters have mentioned that Hamilton’s repeated preference for an efficient central government meant that he would embrace the sizeable federal government that exists today. However no fair reading of Hamilton and his writings would yield this assessment. Hamilton’s arguments about a strong central government should be juxtaposed against the organizational handicaps of the government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. His view was that the government needed to more capable and agile in order to accomplish the limited set of objectives outlined in the Constitution — not the all encompassing objectives presently undertaken by the modern Federal Government. Additionally as a member of the burgeoning merchant class Hamilton believed that there was a fundamental responsibility of the federal government to encourage commerce. For him the lionshare of the regulatory state would be anathema.

    H Cooper

  28. Rob D says:

    @Robert S:

    Liberty basically means limiting other people’s power, and to do this effectively, you support a lesser power against a greater: the pope against the emperor, the king against the pope, the parliament against the king, and so forth.

    When the States dominated, it makes sense to strengthen the central government. Now the balance is tipped the other way, so we oppose Washington’s excesses.

    “Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have he same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.” —Hamilton, Federalist #28

    Also, please let’s appreciate our guest commentators. If there’s more to add, then you can happily add it.

  29. Andy Sparks says:

    Robert,

    You are right on. The Federalist essays are propoganda! They were written specifically to convince New Yorkers to ratify the constitution because many parts of that state had anti-federalist sentiments. It’s important to remember that Madison and Hamilton were strong supporters of a more energetic federal government. Both had witnessed first hand the anemic government under the AOC as representatives from their respective states. They were not proponents of limited government (Madison would become so, but not at this time). In fact, Madison had proposed that the Constitution allow the federal government to negative any state law and was deeply concerned when it was not adopted. Hamilton all but proposed the government be an electable monarchy with the executive and Senate being elected for life. Hamilton, of all the founders, would probably be the most proud of how the USA became a world superpower.

  30. Debbie says:

    The signing of the the name Publius interested me enough that I looked up the definition in Wikpedia. The name Publius is a Roman masculine given name meaning “public” in Latin, one of the small group of common forenames found in the culture of ancient Rome.

    There are also references to other Publius names, such as: Publius Valerius Publicola (Roman Consul), Publius Clodius Pulcher (Republican politician), Publius Cornelius Scipio (Roman Consul), Publius Quinctilius, (Roman General and Politician), Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus (Senator during Nero’s Reign), and Publius Aelius Fortunatus (Roman Painter).

    In actual fact we may never really know who was the real Publius, or was the name used because it meant public.

  31. I so love this, hello everyone. There is so much going on these days that you could almost lose your place if you didn’t press to maintain your focus . I am not complaining but I find the rapid fire of the political scene makes me ponder some of the tactics outlined in the book- Rules for Radicals -. This site is so helpfull,giving an intellectual boost via articulating my own as well as marinating my thoughts in all that is offered on this site.I watch and listen to cable news and radio programing to gather opinions,and while I value the points of view,this site has helped.
    Someone said that we should get rid of Social Security, Medicare and some of the Health care bill,I have to respecfully say if that were to happen, I would be mad as a hatter…. I have been paying into these (not health care )for well over 40 years, holy mackeral that would probably cause many of us older folks to get out our pitch forks.As I would be in the front line. I understand (I think) the point that was trying to be made but fair is fair.
    AZ,I am following this situation very closely and have heard things that range from the sublime to the ridiculous.Bottom line the Goverment has failed and in their failure have denied the citizens in boarder states and all states actually their Constitutional Rights. This group of people are not fullly included in the discussion of civil rights and I don’t think for one minute that it is a mistake.To stand the two groups side by side might provide too much lite on the subject for any real question to even be proposd.The Feds need to get off thier butts and do their jobs,.
    Debate debate debate is the name of the game ,what I find distressing is the demonizing of opposing opinions, . This keeps us honest, or should ,using tricks or slight of speech is a shame.
    Enough from me I guess I should get down off my soapbox. Good Night all.

  32. Shannon Castleman says:

    Andy, good comments. However, I take a different approach than you based on your comment: “It’s important to remember that Madison and Hamilton were strong supporters of a more energetic federal government.”

    It is my belief the reason they wanted a more energetic Federal Government is because under th AOC, the feds couldn’t even raise taxes in order to fund what the constitution stipulated.

    I would rather ask a different question: Pick the most ‘big government’ “Founding Father”, bring him bck to life, bring him to America in the year 2010, and ask him his thoughts.

    Tell that Founding Father that the feds and state governments want to tell me how much salt to eat, want to tell McDonald’s they can’t serve toys with Happy Meal, want to tell cops in AZ they can’t research someone’s citizenship who has been pulled over for a DUI, want to tell me I have to purchase health care insurance, and then record their thoughts.

    I don’t believe the quotes would be printable:)

  33. WeThePeople says:

    @Peter, I too find that interesting that Hamilton and Madison went on to be so influential. It’s odd that their beliefs, or at least one of them, changed. But wasn’t Andrew Jackson behind the creation of the democratic party?
    I think that by signing the papers by the name PUBLIUS, the actual writers separated themselves (all of them being significant political figures of the time) from the Federalist Papers, and made the connection back to the people. I think that, despite the elevated language, it would make the public feel more closely related to the topics addressed in the papers. It would make them feel like the concerns expressed here should be theirs as well.

  34. Tricia Revolinsky says:

    “From its inception our Constitution’s validity was tied to the notion that formal acceptance and ratification by the people and the state legislatures was necessary in order to be legitimate. Our Constitution was neither self-enacting nor imposed from a ruler.”
    What confuses me about this is that the creators of the Constitution decided that the Constitution was effective immediately and that the Articles of Confederation were debunk. They didn’t wait for all the states to ratify that the AOC was now null and void. They hoped that most of the states would ratify it and all the others would fall in behind them. Only after stubborn little Rhode Island ratified it, did it really become a true document formally accepted by the people. Until that point, the Constitution was in all respects, self-enacting.

  35. Carolyn Merritt says:

    The US Constitution that Hamilton, Madison & Jay defended has become one of the most copied and admired documents in the history of mankind. The Federalist itself was published in Spanish in 1811 by the Venezualan Manuel Garcia de Sana, along with copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Federalist influenced movements in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and in Europe.

    Hamilton believed in the future greatness of America and believed that our nation could and would be one of power and strength. He somehow knew the United States would be a world power. (And wouldn’t apologize for it either).

  36. the articles of confederation was an absolute disaster. The states didnt wait to ratify it and because of this many problems arose. Even after the constitution was formed these states were fihting over many other issues than the ge=reat compromise resolved. ONly after rhode island ratifed the constitution did the people of the new wnited states accept the constitution. Be fore this document was ratified howver, the articles did a bad job at holding the counrty together, and only after the constitution was formed did the US truely become a self sustaining nation.

  37. Greg Zorbach says:

    In response to the two posts by Robert Shanbaum, in no particular order:
    Of course “Federalist #1 doesn’t shed much light on the Constitution at all.” It is, after all, titled “General Introduction.” As Mr. Cooper points out, The Federalist Papers “were published in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution that had been crafted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.” It seems to me that to argue means to point out the superiority of your argument and the flaws in opposing ones, as well as any ulterior motives that may exist in those making those opposing arguments. I’m perplexed as to why you would find Mr. Cooper’s blog to be “curious.” He is after all, commenting on a general introduction to an 85-article two-volume set. It did not surprise me that: “The bulk of the essay is not about government at all.” It was billed as an essay on Federalist I, which got the process of persuasion under way. As Mr. Cooper put it: “Premised in his argument is a fundamental foundation upon which our system of government is based — self-government or rule by the consent of the governed. From its inception our Constitution’s validity was tied to the notion that formal acceptance and ratification by the people and the state legislatures was necessary in order to be legitimate. Our Constitution was neither self-enacting nor imposed from a ruler.” Messers Hamilton and Cooper were both setting the stage for what was/is to follow.
    The sense I got from this rereading of Article I was that Hamilton was attempting to introduce the Publius articles by remarking on the “mud-slinging” as you put it, that had marked debate to that point in order to keep that most-important public dialog (as Jay puts it in today’s reading – Federalist II) more substantive, and with candor, even good will. The history of politics is replete with evidence of Hamilton’s warning that those who would stand to lose power (the states’ legislators) under the new Constitution would oppose its ratification, regardless of the strength of the arguments for it. We see that same dynamic in play today: Congress will never vote for a flat tax or term limits: too much restriction on their power. (The closest to the exact opposite I can recall in my lifetime was the new Republican-led congress voting on the first day in session to limit the terms of its committee chairmen.) Hamilton goes on to admit that “Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions…blameless at least if not respectable.”
    As you point out, of course Hamilton was on the side of a more-powerful centralize government. That was the point of the Constitutional Convention: to fix the weaknesses in the governing Articles of Confederation and the resulting weak federal government. I do not believe that Hamilton was (or does in subsequent articles) see ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys.’ It is true though that, as you put it: “Whether one would see it as a “specious mask” of the same is probably a matter of one’s political persuasion.” After all during the previous administration dissent was characterized as patriotic. Today the Tea Partiers are accused (by a former president no less) of fomenting violence.
    I believe that a main genesis of our current exercise of rereading the Constitution and the Federalist Papers is rooted in how far the federal government has strayed from the Constitution, especially from the Tenth Amendment. In that regard, the Anti-Federalists and other skeptics were correct to insist on the Bill of Rights. Although the fact of the Tenth Amendment’s inclusion seems to have had no obvious effect on limiting the federal government’s powers to those enumerated in the Constitution.
    Upon rereading Lillian’s blog, I have no doubt that she understands where Hamilton’s views lie. After she lauds the Anti-Federalists, she makes the basic point of Article I (and our current civic exercise) quite nicely: “Without that rich debate, would we have ever gained the deep appreciation for the liberty and prosperity that was possible as this country grew?” You do realize, do you not, that it takes arguments from both sides of an issue to have a rich debate? Is not the point of any debate or series of articles on an important public issue to “to bias the reader against the other side”?
    As to the question of how Mr. Hamilton would feel about the healthcare “power grab” Lillian mentioned, I disagree in your conclusion. First, we don’t know how Hamilton felt about the issue of establishing hospitals for soldiers and sailors. (Since he served General Washington admirably and loyally, I can hazard a guess.) Secondly, the only thing that the concept of caring for those who flight our wars and/or defend our liberties has in common with the current government’s takeover of the entire nation’s healthcare system is that both are/were federally run. Enlisting in the armed forces requires one to give up significant personal rights and freedoms. In turn, the country, with the government as our agent, provides for those individuals. Not many of us who will see our healthcare choices inevitably restricted under the new law ‘enlisted’ in anything, but we will see our freedoms and liberties limited nonetheless. I believe that Hamilton would be perplexed, if not appalled. In fact, Shannon may be right: his reaction may not be printable.
    OBTW, very nice post, Melanie.

  38. Daniel Smith says:

    Given the history of large governments in the past why do you think Hamilton had such faith in this new county?

  39. Andy Sparks says:

    @Shannon – Undoubtedly, you are right. But then again, Madison and Hamilton probably could not conceive that women and blacks would ever be elected as representatives of our government, or be able to even vote for that matter…

  40. Melanie says:

    Janine, the new series, “America, The Story of Us” is wonderful. The focus of the narration seems to be the deep faith, the independent spirit, and the determination of the Americans to live unfettered lives of limitless possibilities! I was thrilled to hear the commercial announcement that every school in America will receive the DVD series. Let’s hope it is put to good use. (And let’s hope its message remains unchanged.)

    The First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” when clearly understood, is so powerful! It makes me want to come to the defense of people of all faiths. If we don’t reclaim and assert our religious heritage, and stand up against the progressive secularization of our country, we will be lost as a nation, and the world will be lost. A little good news today… the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Mojave Desert WWI War Memorial to display the Cross.

    The more we study these writings, the more profound the gems we find.

  41. Robert Shanbaum says:

    Greg, thank you for responding to my comments.

    I did not write that I thought my observations were surprising, and I apologize for being critical of Mr. Cooper. However, I thought that remarks on Federalist #1 should probably include some comments on the content of Federalist #1, and not just reflections on its title, and that’s what I was trying to (happily) supply.

    I didn’t realize that the object here was to learn about “how far the federal government has strayed from the Constitution”, but to learn about the Constitution. An intellectual inquiry that begins with the former purpose may well find its object, but it will fail to understand its subject well, as only that which was sought will be revealed.

    I am not convinced that the oft-cited fourth paragraph has been well understood here. My use of the term “good guys” and “bad guys” was an attempt to use modern vernacular to describe that which is couched in the unfamiliar prose of another era. If you think that Hamilton was not trying to set up the debate as between what we would call “good guys” (his side) and “bad guys” (the other side) in that paragraph, what do you think he was saying?

    I do indeed realize that a debate requires two positions. A debate does not, however, require what Hamilton has done here; that is, attempting to demonize his opponents before the actual debate begins. I am not passing judgment on the use of this technique – I’m simply observing that that appears to be his main purpose here.

    By the way, the Marine Hospital Fund (and its related income tax) covered not just naval personnel, but merchant seamen as well. Also, I am curious about your comment that the healthcare plan will restrict your healthcare choices, and thereby limit your freedoms and liberties: if this or some other healthcare plan implemented by the government were to increase the number of choices available to you, would that expand your freedoms and liberties? Would that make it OK?

    I do agree that Hamilton’s reaction, and for that matter, the reactions of all of the founders and framers, to the modern federal government, and for that matter, the modern world in general, might well be perplexity and dismay (though I think sheer shock would be the most likely reaction); after all, those are reactions of many who have grown up in it.

    With regard to Mr. Cooper’s comment, wherein he disagreed with my conclusion as to what Hamilton’s possible reaction to healthcare reform might be, saying that Hamilton would have been attached to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, I refer both of you to Hamilton’s actual proposal for the new general government, which you can read here:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

    Also, you may find his side of a debate with Jefferson regarding the chartering of a national bank informative:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp

  42. Dale Swartzel says:

    Wonderful article! I think I understand a lot more about what the founders were trying to say and why. Thanks so much.

  43. Ross Bigney says:

    To me the most important lesson from Federalist #1 is the importance of hearing again that even the greatest idea — for example the Constitution — isn’t valid unless the people consent. Our founding fathers were marvelous people — they had such foresight. And people like George Washington who were popular enough that he could have become king of our country but would not. They are truly marvelous people.

  44. Arizona lawmakers have approved changes to the state’s controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants. The changes were designed to answer charges made by protesters that it will lead to racial profiling by police. The original law stated police can conduct an immigration status check during any quote “lawful contact,” if they have reasonable suspicion a person is an illegal immigrant. It replaces “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest,” clarifying police may not stop people without cause. The revised law also removes the word “solely” from the phrase “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.” Read the new Arizona Immigration Law

  45. Kristine says:

    Please note, there is a great article enitled “Could the Constitution stop the new health-care law?” by Nathan W. Tucker in the Christian Science Montior Volume 102, Issue 23 (current issue..weekly publication.) In it he mentions that the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 do not mention the power to “legislate our health.” He goes on to discuss why the common claim by Congress that the Commerce Clause, and Tax and Spend Clause, and references to general welfare do not support the power grab of mandating the purchase of healthcare. He also mentions the “FEDERALIST PAPERS.”

  46. Rod Criscillis says:

    That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Will all of the Federalist Papers be brought down to earth in such a compelling way? Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.

  47. Susan Craig says:

    I don’t know about the suffrage of other races but I see no reason that they couldn’t imagine the suffrage of women because women had suffrage in the late 1700 in the state of my birth New Jersey.

Posted in Federalist Paper 01, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Guest Constitutional Scholars, Horace Cooper | No Comments »

April 29, 2010 – Federalist No. 2 – Cathy Gillespie

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Some great discussion going on!  Love the give and take. I am learning so much from everyone’s analysis and comments, so I thought tonight I would highlight some of the quotes from Federalist No. 2, and from the posts and blog comments which especially resonate with me.

My good friend, Marc Lampkin, did an excellent job as Guest Blogger today.  We especially appreciate Marc coming back on in the afternoon to further expound on John Jay – he provided some enlightening background information.

Have you all been watching Janine’s Daily Podcasts on the website? I highly recommend you check them out each day for the lighter side of Constituting America.  Yesterday she gave us a tour of her ranch and longhorns (don’t you love their names?), and today we got to see where she does her best work – her car!  Janine and I have an ongoing battle of who has the most miles on their car.  Mine is currently at 130,405 and I believe Janine may be beating me by about 10,000 miles.  As moms, it seems we spend the majority of our day driving or sitting in parking lots waiting.  Amazing how much you can get done in a parking lot!

As for Federalist No. 2, I had several favorite passages:

“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.”

As Shannon pointed out, the people cede power to the government.  And similar to the point Janine made in her post, when we are not educated and informed, when we are lax, or not paying attention, we are making the decision to cede even more of our individual rights and liberties.

The other quote that caught my eye, and was highlighted earlier today by Susan, was:

“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.”

Again, the theme is an educated, engaged and thoughtful electorate.  Issues of great magnitude deserve thorough consideration. When we ground ourselves in the U.S. Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded, we have a road map to guide us through the maze of public policy proposals that can easily lead down roads that will ultimately take our country in the wrong direction.

A big thank you to all of you who are blogging! We invite our silent partners to find your voice and let us hear from you!

And a final big thank you to our founder and co-chair, Janine Turner! Janine had the idea for Constituting America over a year ago, promptly registered the domain name, and got to work organizing!   It is her vision that has brought us the 90 in 90 = 180: History Holds the Key to the Future program. Janine is an inspiration to me, as she continually puts God, her daughter, and her country first in her life. It is an honor to serve with her in this effort.

Good night!

Cathy Gillespie

5 Responses to “April 29, 2010 – Federalist No. 2 – Cathy Gillespie”

  1. Amy Winchester says:

    I am so grateful for this Website and have been telling my friends, e-mailing them, and telling others I work with. I have never read the Federalist Papers and have found so much foundational truth and we are only on #4. What a gold mine! Anecdote: re: being informed and educated. I was at the public library the other day waiting for my grandson and thought I would read my daily Federalist reading so asked the librarian if they had a copy of theFederalist Papers. She did not know what they were and someone overhearing my said, ” I think I have heart that name before. What are they?” So I was able to inform them and the librarian took down the Web site information. We have to keep spreading the word. This is great!

  2. Susan Craig says:

    How sad that librarians need to be informed as to the debates about our founding documents!

  3. This is a great website and Miss Turner certainly has an incredible grasp of the constitution…..read: The divider in chief….at…..
    http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/

  4. Roger Jett says:

    I just happened upon this website tonight and have not fully digested all that’s available here. I am impressed with what I see. We are in danger as a nation and one of the biggest challenges I see us facing is our lack of understanding and appreciation of what we have been blessed with. As a people, I’m afraid we have over time grown quite ignorant, but the American People are not generally stupid and ignorance can be overcome by learning and developing the ability to discern truth. To all who have played a roll in building this website I say thank you and may God bless you.

  5. Rich_H says:

    Jay’s opening statement, “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.” Is relevant today, Americans will have to reflect that they now must decide a question; will we return to the Constitution or abandon it for Obama’s transformation into a lesser America under the ruling thumb of a gigantic government.

    Some people suggest we need a Constitutional Convention today but do we today have people of the caliber of out Founders? Whom Jay describes as, “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” who “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.”

    Do we have such people who would be in that convention today?! No! We do not need a convention. We need a return to the original Constitution.

    Contrast the difference between the patriots founding our country and the leaders betraying America today. Our Founders “only RECOMMENDED, not imposed” this plan and explained the 7 page Constitution in detail with 33federalist papers. Today Obama/Dems rammed through an over 1000 page health care plan against public will, unseen and unexplained, in fact lied about. Pelosi said it needed to be passed so we would know what’s in it. How have we sunk so far?

    If the progressive left is not stopped and their damage undone, we shall surely be saying of our beloved America, “FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.”

 

 

Posted in Federalist Paper 02, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Cathy Gillespie | No Comments »

April 29, 2010 – Federalist No. 2 – Janine Turner

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Howdy from Texas! I thank you for joining us today! I am thoroughly enjoying this process and I am learning so much from the readings, our exceptional scholar’s essays and from all of you who are blogging. I want to say how appreciative I am that Marc S. Lampkin joined us today as our “guest scholar” and I thank him for his wonderful interpretation and explanation of Federalist Paper #2 by John Jay. Thanks Marc!

There are many aspects in our readings of the United States Constitution and “The Federalist” that are relevant today. However, as I was juggling many pertinent points from Federalist Paper #2, suddenly a more general observation manifested.

Our forefathers were intent on explaining the Constitution to the people of the United States. They wanted the Republic to understand what was in the “bill,” and they undertook great pains and efforts to make sure that happened – 85 different Opinion Editorials published in newspapers and spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton.

Not only did they go to great pains to explain the contents of the Constitution, which was only seven pages, they knew that the American public would demand to know what was in it before they ratified it. This brings about two conclusions:

1. The American people of the 18th century wanted to know what their government was doing, felt very much involved in the process, and were passionate about the direction of their country
2. Publius and the signatories of the United States Constitution felt obligated to explain it to them, and did so in great detail and they could – as they had written it and they understood it.

A very different atmosphere exists today. Both the American people and the United States government are to blame for the obscurity in which we wander. The bloated bills and ignorance of their intentions are the fault of both the governor and the governed. We, as collective countrymen and women, grew discordant and lax in the affairs of the state, and like a child pushing the boundaries with their parents, the United States government got away with what they could. It’s human nature. Men are not angels – hence, the Constitution.

But times have changed. Our country’s woes are like trying times for the soul. Difficult times are God’s way of shaping our character – making us into the people He wants us to be – a light, a leader. Now Americans are waking up and realizing that we must once again demand to understand. What is really in the bill and what is really the direction of our country? We are realizing that we must vet, vote and find our voice. In our blood is the ancestry of righteousness.

We must stress to our elective officials that we will accept nothing less than clarity. In Federalist Paper #62 James Madison zeros in on this point:

It will be of little avail to the people, that
the laws are made by men of their own choice,
if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before
they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known or less fixed.

The title of John Jay’s Federalist Paper No. 2, “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence,” is applicable today as well. If we do not gain control of the economy we are going to be like Greece and times of economic stress are ripe for tyranny.
If we do not gain control of our spending and deficit then we are a sitting duck for the hunters who wait in the night – “Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence.” As Benjamin Franklin said, “Think, when you run into debt, you give to another power over your Liberty.”

John Jay’s ends this paper, from over two hundred years ago, with a Shakespearean quote, it echoes eerily across our current environment. It is a battle cry and ominous warning of something we do not want to ever shout, “FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS”

As the present necessity of unity prevails, we the people will gather with the mission of preserving our great country and we will be spurred by our patriotism and launched by our learning.

God Bless,

Janine Turner

6 Responses to “April 29, 2010 – Federalist No. 2 – Janine Turner”

  1. Richard Gruver says:

    Janine, Those are great thoughts on our current state of government. When the press and the governed decided that character no longer mattered but only progressive press aligned political ideology and many of the governed became incessantly dependent on government handouts and fixated on class envy promoted by progressives and the media we lost our way. The Bible says don’t covet thy neighbor’s property, wife, goods…etc. but preogressive envy everything of those who work hard and want it all taken and redistributed to the envyors. It will take dedication, courage and a divine hand once again to re-establish our nation to its’ founders principals. It starts a the ballot box and voting for elected officials who put the constitution and the people above themselves. I hope we can be sucessful as the alternative is not very good for our future generations.

  2. Seij De Leon says:

    I find it very interesting how when the country was being constructed, the people were so ready and willing to learn about the constitution. Nowadays I think this overall involvement in the direction of the country has definitely weaned, which is understandable as they are not dealing with the insecurity and troubles of forming a new system of government after the relatively ineffective and weak Articles of Confederation. If more people were to take an active role in examining politicians and seeing what they put first, instead of trusting the news media, then the nation could start to head in a better direction, like how Gruver says, it starts at the ballot box.

  3. Kellie says:

    Given this new passion sweeping the country, which our current leadership has so graciously created, I am anxious and excited to see what happens in November. I am hoping and praying that it will be the catalyst for the people of this country to continue to pay attention, spread the word and make their voices heard. We may be on the eve of a scary, yet possibly exciting, new revolution…

  4. Charles Babb says:

    Janine; you and Cathy have provided a wonderful service by making this educational tool available.

    How, and why has the practice of writing such confusing and lengthy bills evolved? Was it just to confuse the electorate so that we would have less control over our legislators?

    How we go about demanding clarity in the way legislation is written will be another story, but with the armor of knowledge and the weapon of truth, we will prevail.

  5. tommy says:

    Just wanted to say I really liked the post. You have really put a lot of energy into your posts and it is just awesome!

  6. Jim S says:

    Charles & All,

    Legislation has become more lengthly because we expect it to be specific. The Constitution, on the other hand, is simply the framework for our government. If we wanted to fairly compare the two, we should include with the Constitution Congress’ rules of order, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and all military regulations, rules of decorum for the Supreme Court, and Executive procedures. This compendium would outline exactly how the government should be run, as the healthcare bill outlines for its role. Then we may complain about our 2000+ page Constitution.

    Jim

 

 

Posted in Federalist Paper 02, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Janine Turner | No Comments »

April 29, 2010 – Federalist No. 2 – Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, for the Independent Journal (Jay) – Guest Blogger: Marc S. Lampkin, partner at Quinn Gillespie and Associates LLC and graduate of Boston College Law School

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Federalist Paper #2 was written by future Federalist party chieftain John Jay to address what many founders felt was a critical deficiency regarding the then existing government authorized by the Articles of Confederation.  The deficiency was the major vulnerability the young nation faced because it lacked sufficient national authority to defend itself or to enforce its laws.

Reflecting his view that the public “choose” the new central government contemplated in the Constitution rather than simply acquiesce in it, Jay presents his arguments in terms of the “self interest” of the readers.  “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.”

John Jay was the oldest contributor to the Federalist Papers at age 41.  Jay, a staunch abolitionist who would go on to become governor of New York and successfully ban slavery statewide, also had served as President of the Continental Congress and was a principal negotiator of the Treaty of Paris.  After the U.S. Constitution was ratified, he would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

At the time of the writing of Federalist #2, it had only been a few years since the Revolutionary War had ended.  Although the Americans had just successfully defeated one of the most powerful military forces on the planet when it successfully won its independence against England, barely five years later the capacity to carry off a similar feat was dramatically undermined by the operation of the Articles of Confederation.  In addition, compounding matters there was increasing sentiment among the political class that instead of presenting a “united” front as part of a United States of America, the states should actively consider whether even the loose association authorized by the Articles was either useful or worthwhile.

John Jay vigorously argues that not only should the states remain united; they should adopt the proposed Constitution’s federal style of government.  It was Jay’s view that the crisis of the Revolutionary War had led to the hasty creation of the Articles of Confederation and even as its defects became apparent, those deficiencies were not great enough to prevent America from prevailing in the war.

Now that the war was over, the problems of the Articles had been so severe that the Philadelphia Convention had been convened to attempt to ameliorate its difficulties.  Of course the result of the convention was an entirely new compact being drafted.  The central theme of this compact is that it contains a Federal Government with specific authority and power to carry out its limited but important duties in a way that the Federal Government authorized under the Articles of Confederation could not.

John Jay presents two basic premises that are basis for his argument:  it is a fundamental responsibility of government that it has the necessary power to regulate conflict and administer the laws it has lawfully enacted.  Secondly, in order for any grant of authority to be legitimate it must be consensual — that is the people must grant the government the powers.

While Jay recognized that any of the government powers exercised ultimately came from the people, the issue was which of these powers should be reserved for citizens and which were usefully granted to the government.  The test for Jay was whether a particular grant of authority best protected the safety and interests of the American populace.   However, this problem was made more difficult when the question of whether the Americans should unite under one national government or instead become separate states.

To Jay the answer was a strong union. He believed that for all intents and purposes, the confederation of states were already a union.  He argued that the geographical make up of the nation including its topography and “navigable waters” created natural boundaries that encouraged commonality.  Additionally the faith, language, principles and customs of the people who dwelled in this land which were overwhelmingly similar also argued for a strong union.

“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.”

Since the land, people and language made it naturally more efficient to remain together then Jay believed that it was essential that the government they were subject to had the authority and power to carry out its duties in a way that the Articles of Confederation had never allowed.  “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.” It was John Jay’s considered view that the adoption of the Constitution in the long term would prove beneficial to all Americans both in a time of military conflict and in times of peace.

Marc S. Lampkin, partner at Quinn Gillespie and Associates LLC is a graduate of Boston College Law School

 

Posted in Federalist Paper 02, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Guest Constitutional Scholars, Marc S. Lampkin | No Comments »

April 30, 2010 – Federalist No. 3 – Cathy Gillespie

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

Howdy from Texas! I am still here in the Lone Star State for a few more days.   Tonight Janine and I were honored to be invited to a wonderful gathering hosted by our friends Don Hodges and David Thompson and many new and old friends in Dallas to fill them in on Constituting America and how they can be involved.  We are gratified by the enthusiasm those in attendance have for learning and spreading the word about the U.S. Constitution, and hope to see our Dallas friends joining us on the 90 in 90 = 180: History Holds the Key to the Future Blog!

Today’s reading, Federalist 3, begins to address the benefits of the new government proposed by the U.S. Constitution, vs. a government of independent, sovereign states, as some at the time advocated.  It is interesting that one of the first justifications for the Constitution expounded upon by John Jay was the safety and security of the homeland, still a primary concern today.

Jay’s statement that “one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter,” is certainly true.  A government that is perceived as strong will be less vulnerable to attack than one that is divided and weak.

Chuck  invoked Ronald Reagan today, and President Reagan was on my mind as I read Federalist No. 3 as well.  In a compelling National Security speech on March 23, 1983, Reagan said:

The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.

Just as a body’s strength is dependent on its skeletal system, our country’s strength is dependent on its Constitutional backbone.

Our founding fathers knew they lived in a world that posed threats, and they knew the best way to keep the peace was a strong, unified country.  Two hundred twenty-two years later, our world still poses threats, and the stronger and more unified the United States is perceived, the safer we will be.

Have a great weekend everyone!

See you Monday for Federalist No. 4

Cathy Gillespie

9 Responses to “April 30, 2010 – Federalist No. 3 – Cathy Gillespie”

  1. Susan Craig says:

    That is one thing I can never figure out. How when we have never been the initiator of aggression and very infrequently have we retained, annexed and or occupied for our profit can we be called imperialist? What dictionary definition of that word do people who think that hold to?

  2. Reed W says:

    Wow, the more I read, the more I am grateful for the founding fathers and their consideration and determination to bring about a united government that was motivated towards the shared rewards of a participating society. They looked to bring forth the best in we humans, considered all the pitfalls we manipulate, over stepped their own, and reached for the honesty of common decency. It was so down to earth and selfless, and good. Can we still live up to it, as Franklin implied? O gosh, we need a really big big wake up for a lot of people, politicians and voters. They gave us the tools, the framework, it’s not dissolved yet. How do we get this education out? It is so amazing that all this even came about. Thanks again for having this symposium!

  3. Daneen says:

    “our country’s strength is dependent on its Constitutional backbone”. It seems to me that in the plethora of labels tossed out these days–liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, independent, etc — the Constitution itself has been completely forgotten. I identify myself as a Constitutionalist and people actually ask me “What’s that?” How sad that they do not even ASSUME a meaning for that label…

    I applaud and appreciate what you’re doing here, it is more crucial now than at any time in our history–will spread the link!

  4. Bob Greenslade says:

    You wrote:

    “Today’s reading, Federalist 3, begins to address the benefits of the new government proposed by the U.S. Constitution, vs. a government of independent, sovereign states, as some at the time advocated.”

    It appears you are asserting that the Constitution consolidated the States into one nation and they are no longer sovereign entities because they surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government.

    Please explain your comment. Thanks.

  5. Hi Bob – Thank you for your question! Ours is a federal system. Often people are confused about it, and this is one of the reasons we initiated this project – to try to address concerns just as you mentioned. If you look at the preamble, our Constitution makes clear that the beginning and the end of the government’s authority comes from the consent of the people. We the people desire to form “a more perfect Union; establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense…. ordain and establish this Constitution.”

    By ratifying the U.S. Constitution the people caused the State to cede certain powers to the federal government. Both the Constitution itself and the founders who drafted and confirmed it imply only that states ceded the powers enumerated and listed in the U.S. Constitution as powers belonging to a federal government. All other authority continues to rest with the people and the states respectively. When the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, both the 9th and 10 amendments reaffirmed this principle.

  6. Roger Jett says:

    Excellent comments by Cathy and all ! I would like to add a quote attributed to James Madison that for me is pertinent to the discussion as it pertains to the sovereignty issue.
    ” We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

  7. Kristine says:

    Roger Jett regarding your post: WOW. Intuitively, we know this, and it is what our parents taught us; but here it is in black and white from the Father of the Constitution. Very powerful and worth remembering. This incident in NYC is a good example of one man using his intellegence and God-given sense to prevent a terrorist attack. What if he decided not to get involved and let someone else take care of the problem. Boom.

    Thanks for the quote.

  8. Andy Sparks says:

    Unfortunately, it can not be proved that James Madison said that. Especially with the proliferation of the internet, bogus quotes are flying around everywhere that can not be appropriately attributed to the authors. Below is a reference asking the question of the validity of this very quote:

    http://candst.tripod.com/misq1.htm

  9. Roger Jett says:

    I agree with Andy Sparks that we can all too easily latch on to a bogus quote off of internet sources. I apologize for not citing the source for my earlier post concerning a quote that has been “attributed” to James Madison. My source for ascribing this quote to Madison is Frederick Nymeyer, Progressive Calvinism, (January, 1958), Vol. 4, p. 31.

 

Posted in Federalist Paper 03, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Cathy Gillespie | No Comments »

April 30, 2010 – Federalist Paper No. 3 – Janine Turner

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Howdy from Texas. I thank you for joining us today and I thank today’s guest scholar, William B. Allen, for his words of wisdom about Federalist Paper #3. Thanks William!

What I continue to find fascinating is how the Federalist Papers are consistently relevant today. John Jay’s Federalist Paper #3 is one that really motivates contemplation. Publius speaks about how the unity of the country, the states, is the best way to combat an enemy or foreign intrigues. Unity, a house united, is definitely more advantageous than a house divided. Objectivity trumps subjectivity.

Yet, if the states are to acquiesce their rights and inclinations to defend themselves, then it is the duty of the Federal government to adequately protect the states. The father must protect his children. The Federal government needs to pay heed.

John Jay provides examples of how domestic disputes amongst small countries in Europe often lead to major battles – battles that then enveloped several nations for many years. We have certainly seen this repeat itself subsequently and most recently in the 20th century yielding morbid and tragic devastation.

During our country’s infancy, unity amongst the states was paramount for a strong and unilateral defense.
However, ironically, the same principle applies today. With the current situation in Arizona, we should remain first and foremost unified in dealing with the crisis at hand. Brother against brother, state against state, breeds contempt and failure.

It is prophetically proposed by our founding fathers that a unified action yields the best result for the nation.
Let us remember that unity will reign victorious and gather wisdom to deal with all obstacles.

We are the United States of America.

God Bless,

Janine Turner
April 30, 2010

P.S. Don’t forget to check out our “We the People 9.17 Contest” for kids, my daily Video Podcasts and the archive of the daily essays written by Cathy and me and our daily guest scholar!

Responses to “April 30, 2010 – Federalist Paper No. 3 – Janine Turner”

  1. Maggie says:

    I have found it fascinating that the reading of Federalist #3 is so timely with what is happening in AZ today. This reading has, thus far for me, presented the greatest corellation to current events. What was true to life when the constitution and Federalist papers were written is true today and will continue to be so. That is why we must continue to learn and protect the great gifts that were given to us with the writing of these documents.

  2. Jessica D. Hicks says:

    .

  3. Marc W. Stauffer says:

    The wisdom of this Founding Father continually astounds me. His comments are as relevant today as when he first put pen to his thoughts. The old adage of; “a house united stands strong, but a house divided falls”, rings true in Jay’s dissertation of the need for unity. I must admit that it makes me nervous to hear states give thought to succession as this tears at the fabric of our unity. We need to continually use the strong material of historical knowledge to weave the cloth of unity, repair its holes of strife, and keep it fresh and new!

  4. Nancy Wujcik says:

    I am enjoying this project and want to thank you all. I especially enjoyed your comments today about how the Arizona law and things that divide us make us more vulnerable to outside forces just as was written in this FederalistPaper. I think relating these to present day events make them mean more to the reader. Thanks!

  5. Bob Greenslade says:

    You wrote:

    “Yet, if the states are to acquiesce their rights and inclinations to defend themselves, then it is the duty of the Federal government to adequately protect the states. The father must protect his children.”

    Are you asserting that the States surrendered their “rights” to the federal government?

    “The father must protect his children.” Are you asserting that the States spring from the federal government?

    Thanks.

  6. Hi Bob – Thank you for your question! Ours is a federal system. Often people are confused about it, and this is one of the reasons we initiated this project – to try to address concerns just as you mentioned. If you look at the preamble, our Constitution makes clear that the beginning and the end of the government’s authority comes from the consent of the people. We the people desire to form “a more perfect Union; establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense…. ordain and establish this Constitution.”

    By ratifying the U.S. Constitution the people caused the State to cede certain powers to the federal government. Both the Constitution itself and the founders who drafted and confirmed it imply only that states ceded the powers enumerated and listed in the U.S. Constitution as powers belonging to a federal government. All other authority continues to rest with the people and the states respectively. When the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, both the 9th and 10 amendments reaffirmed this principle.

 

 

Posted in Federalist Paper 03, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Janine Turner | No Comments »

April 30, 2010 – Federalist No. 3 – The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (Jay) – Guest Blogger: William B. Allen, Professor of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Essay # 3 investigates the causes of war. Publius seems to raise the question, not merely from curiosity but rather because it’s important to be prepared to prevail in war and also to place one’s state in the position to avoid war. The Federalist Papers seem to adopt this perspective in its approach to foreign policy inquiring not how to adopt an active posture for engaging in war but rather how to make war as little likely as possible. The argument is laid out by the end of the third essay, and then stated outright in the fourth essay, where he says of the American people, “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.” This deterrence theory is based on a number of factors deriving from human nature, and it therefore forces us to ask whether Publius generally understands the causes of war. Again, in the third essay we see a claim that the pace of America highly depends upon observance of the laws of nature towards all foreign powers, a thing more perfectly accomplished in proportion as we have one national government rather than thirteen or some other number of states. We expect, therefore, to close with an argument from efficiency, less chance, greater consistency, and greater stability in foreign relations.

Surprisingly, Publius does not do that in the third essay. He instead states the following: “When once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed.” He argues not from efficiency but from the character and talents of the officeholders. The first reason for increased national security is clearly that one obtain the best statesmen. The question of safety calls for intelligence and consistency.

It is wise to avoid war, and Publius illustrates this by arguing that “Hence, it will result that the administration, the political councils and the judicial decisions of the national Government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious, than those of the individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us.” The chief means to avoid war is good order at home, and it includes satisfying other nations.

A third reason for a foreign policy of justice and consistency is that the national government will avoid tempting other nations to offend the United States because a United States that is well organized will be successful and prosperous, and that is what will bring peace. It will dispose other nations to cultivate our friendship as well as yielding strength. This will attract other nations into peaceful association, and this is what makes it possible to avoid war.

W. B. Allen

Michigan State University

Professor William B. Allen is emeritus dean and professor of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University.

39 Responses to “April 30, 2010 – Federalist No. 3 – The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From ForeignForce and Influence (Jay) – Guest Blogger: William B. Allen, Professor of Political Philosophy at Michigan StateUniversity”

  1. Susan Craig says:

    So far the argument for union, is the implied understanding that in strength there is peace.

  2. Carolyn Attaway says:

    There was so much in Paper #3 that lends itself to a good discussion. However; the 3rd and 4th paragraphs sum up the whole paper for me when John Jay talks of Foreign Arms and Influence; and Like Kind arising from domestic causes. And whether the wars happen or will happen because of REAL or PRETEND causes that will PROVOKE or INVITE them.

    I am constantly amazed at the insight our Founders had regarding the present State of the Union during their time, as well as future conditions that could, and most likely will, occur. Without the strength of a Union, the individual states existence were in danger because of their lack of reinforcements from the other states; that combined with their statenot only ensured safety of external forces, but internal conflicts as well.

    Think of all the small countries in Europe that have been abolished and/or reformed into other countries because of internal or external conflicts. The country of Yugoslavia, for example; until 1941 was the First State of Yugoslavia with a monarchy rule. The Second of Yugoslavia was from November 29, 1943 until June 25, 1991, and it was a socialist successor state to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and existed under various names.

    The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was from April 27, 1992 until February 4, 2003 and it was a federation on the territory of the two remaining republics of Serbia and Montenegro.
    The Union of Serbia and Montenegro was formed on February 4, 2003, and officially abolished the name “Yugoslavia.” On June 3 and June 5, 2006, Montenegro and Serbia respectively declared their independence, thereby ending the last remnants of the former Yugoslav federation.

    This present day example could have very easily happened to any individual state during the Founders time if they allowed themselves to believe they were stronger as an individual entity as opposed to an entity within a greater union. As John Jay explains, there were threatening forces for the Border States, as well as internal conflicts with native Indians within other states. With a Union, individual states were protected from aggressors, as well as being prevented from becoming a rogue state that would threaten the security of the Union.

    Today, many of our states are experiencing turmoil from neighboring countries, other states, and citizens. The Founders had put in place measures on the Federal level to keep the Union secure. However; I find it ironic, that today it is the Federal government that is threatening the security of the Individual States.

  3. Chuck Plano, Tx says:

    The very argument that is made in Federalist #3 for Peace through Strength was the very essence of the Ronald Regan Administration. Remember when he refused to give up SDI and the media belittled him and yet what do we see today, missile defense. When Regan let the summit in Iceland go with out an agreement with the USSR on arms control every one said we were doomed and yet who fell from the world stage, the USSR and not the United States. The most important question is where are we headed today and how will we mantain our strength when those who are supposed to be our leaders and willing to give up our strenth by crippling our economy after all it is economic strength that produces the real stength in any nation.

  4. Bill Kenagy says:

    In “strength bringing peace” the opportunity then will present itself to aid our fellow man rather than war with our fellow ma.

  5. Shannon Castleman says:

    Chuck, insightful. I fear where we are headed today is disater on a global scale. I think Jay ande others of the time would tell us today, “Let’s be as strong militarily as e can, so that others will not cause us harm. In return, let’s not have troops in fifty nations, (lik we do today), so that other nations will not feel the need to wage war against us.”

    What better use of our resources if we took 80% of the troops we have spread around the world and secured our borders, south and north. I care not what the North Koreans do (our troops there); I care intensely what the Mexicans do.

  6. Susan H. says:

    Hi All,

    I’m catching up on my reading today. Thank you everyone for your great comments.

    I was struck today by the passage “Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but will also generally be appointed to manage it…..” I feel like maybe at this point in time we don’t have the best men or women in the country serving. Of course this behooves the population to place better people in office.

    I also wanted to say that I agreed with the comment from a few days ago regarding how the founding fathers WANTED the people to know what the government was doing. It really does feel to me like the present government is being sneaky.

  7. Randy Nutt says:

    I took from Federalist #3 the need for a centralized govt to protect the whole of the States and wage war if necessary… Federalist #3 ties in to the border question we have today in my opinion… if we have between 12 and 25 million illegals crossing the border and Art IV section 4 of the Constitution has the Federal Govt responsible for protecting the borders from an invasion, then if the numbers I stated are correct, what, pray tell, would constitute an invading force than up to 25 million non-citizens?

    Just saying…

  8. Chuck Plano, Tx says:

    Shannon it is very frightful as we see what is going on, on our southern border. In the late 1980′s after Casper Winberger was Secetary of Defense he wrote a novel outlining 5 senerios where the USA could fing itself in war. One of those was Mexico, as that country would become so corrupt and violent due to it’s drug problem that the US would have to send troops to stabilize it in “our” national security interest. It appears we have reached that point but our Federal Government has niether the plan or the will to do so much less secure our own borders.

  9. Morning. It’s Janine. I think it is very interesting and quite relevant how John Jay talks about the states dealing with their neighboring countries in a passionate manner as opposed to the Federal government who would deal with the state’s neighboring countries in a cool, objective manner.

    This begs the question: If the Federal government is to protect the states re her foreign borders then should they not neglect the states needs and causes? What happens if the states are left in middle of desperate situations with no aid from the Federal government. Is this where the Tenth Amendment comes into play?

  10. Susan Craig says:

    I think that in their worldview the order of responsibility went person, family, local, state and last and only as a final resort federal.

  11. Damon Wilson says:

    Professor Allen points out something that I’d never thought about before — the question of what should nations do to avoid invasion. It appears that the founders didn’t think that merely being friendly was a sufficient basis for ensuring that one would be free from an attack. President Reagan comes to mind, but I’d be curious what Presidents over the 20th and the 19th Century before thought about this principle?

  12. Gary says:

    Janine. I think your scenario is a prime example of when the 10th Amendment would be very operative. After all, the central government cannot state that an obligation is Constitutionally reserved to it, then refuse to exercise that obligation. I beleive Congress has defacto abrogated the right to “control naturalization” and the sovereign states must do it themselves.

  13. Carolyn Merritt says:

    @Constituting America and Gary: James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 45 that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the StateGovernments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce;…The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects , which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

    In my humble opinion, I believe Arizona is correctly operating under the States’ Rights set forth in the 10th Amendment because the Congress is not doing its duty to protect Arizona from its loss of life, liberty, property and prosperity.

    What say someone else?

  14. Carolyn Merritt says:

    Federalist #3 is the first of 3 of Jay’s arguments that the Articles of Confederation are inadequate for our defense. In this third paper, Jay puts great emphasis on the reasoning for a national united Government as opposed to the 13 states each governing their own way.

    He states that we Americans long hold the belief that in order to continue with peace and prosperity; we do so under a single governing body, the federal government. The first provision by the governing body is the safety of our Country and We the people. Though the Founders were more concerned about our being protected against foreigninvasions and influence, they were also concerned even then about the dangers of domestic insecurity. Jay goes on to state that through a friendly and efficient national government can we best be protected from foreign hostilities. Our Nation would not be the provocateur because we would be an America that is united. “The Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.”

    Jay goes on to state that it is extremely important that in order to maintain the peace of America we respect and observe the laws of nations in which we have signed treaties and this can be done only by and through one united Government, not by the several states or sovereignties.

    He gives the sound reasoning as to why we needed a national government run by men of intellect appointed to serve wisely, systematically, and judicially. Jay felt that left to their own governing, separate states would selfishly guard their own peoples and borders.

  15. Maggie says:

    Federalist #3, for me, drew the strongest parallel thus far to what we are experiencing today. Jay states that “Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.” Has our government lost sight of this? “We the people” have stated time and time again that our biggest concern is safety. Jay also states that “The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not non others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations”. Doesn’t the Federal government have a duty and an obligation to HELP AZ? Is this not one reason WHY a centralized government was established rather than having several smaller governments?

  16. Maggie says:

    @ Carolyn….I too was struck by the fact that our founding fathers had the foresight to understand that dangers can come not only from “Foreign Arms”, but can also arise “from domestic causes”. These wonderful men seemed to have thought of everything that could possibly go wrong. God Bless them.

  17. Susan H. says:

    To Carolyn M.

    I wholeheartedly agree that AZ is doing the correct thing considering that the Federal government can’s seem to find the will to protect that border. Here we are reading the writing of our founding fathers arguing that the federal government is needed for just this sort of thing and yet currently the federal government is failing. It will be interesting to see if any other states follow suit in this issue.

  18. Howdy from Texas. I thank you for joining us today and I thank today’s guest scholar, William B. Allen, for his words of wisdom about Federalist Paper #3. Thanks William!

    What I continue to find fascinating is how the Federalist Papers are consistently relevant today. John Jay’sFederalist Paper #3 is one that really motivates contemplation. Publius speaks about how the unity of the country, the states, is the best way to combat an enemy or foreign intrigues. Unity, a house united, is definitely more advantageous than a house divided. Objectivity trumps subjectivity.

    Yet, if the states are to acquiesce their rights and inclinations to defend themselves, then it is the duty of the Federal government to adequately protect the states. The father must protect his children. The Federal government needs to pay heed.

    John Jay provides examples of how domestic disputes amongst small countries in Europe often lead to major battles – battles that then enveloped several nations for many years. We have certainly seen this repeat itself subsequently and most recently in the 20th century yielding morbid and tragic devastation.

    During our country’s infancy, unity amongst the states was paramount for a strong and unilateral defense.
    However, ironically, the same principle applies today. With the current situation in Arizona, we should remain first and foremost unified in dealing with the crisis at hand. Brother against brother, state against state, breeds contempt and failure.

    It is prophetically proposed by our founding fathers that a unified action yields the best result for the nation.
    Let us remember that unity will reign victorious and gather wisdom to deal with all obstacles.

    We are the United States of America.

    God Bless,

    Janine Turner
    April 30, 2010

    P.S. Don’t forget to check out our “We the People 9.17 Contest” for kids, my daily Video Podcasts and the archive of the daily essays written by Cathy and me and our daily guest scholar!

  19. Susan says:

    I am struck by the amount of thought put into these papers to explain the authors’ reasoning for the adoption of the Constitution to the people. It is a stark contrast to today’s bills which are so long and convoluted that I don’t think anyone can read them let alone explain them and probably few even try.

  20. John Harris says:

    I believe some of the founding fathers had an idealistic view of it’s new country and republic. Most specifically, Monroe believed that the brotherhood of republics transcended national boarders and expansion of induvidual liberties was central to the policies of modern governments born of revolution and the revolution would tear down national bounaries and unite mankind. Once the revolution was over he/they realized real quick that self interest was a greater force than any republic. England, France and others coveted the riches of the new world. The founding fathers found themselves having to preserve the united colonies (thank you Federalist Papers), protect them from invasion and promote trade abroad. And the best way at the time was through diplomacy and not war.

    Translating to our present situation we find ourselves relying on others for natural resources, trade abroad has resulted in a large deficit, and our boarders have been invaded. It is vital that every citizen in America today understand our Constitution and how it was formed. If we dismiss the wisdom of our forefathers we are doomed to tyranny.

  21. Jesse Stewart says:

    You all have said things that struck me when reading Federalist 3. But what really stood out, as others have suggested, was that the best men will fill the roles of “administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions” of the national government because there is a large population in the Union from which to draw these men.

    Would Jay roll over in his grave given the quality and honor of those serving today? It is our responsibility as citizens to ensure that the “best men” are filling those important roles!

    PS: realized I didn’t put my last name on previous comments; not intentional!

  22. Eli Hazelett says:

    There would seem to be many ways that a country could fall apart — does an invasion have to be formally waged by a nation as such or can it come from an unorganized group?

  23. Peggy Brittain says:

    “The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.”

    It seems to me that our national representative government has turned this around. They are the ones who justify their actions, and oppose their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses.

    If we cannot believe in our national government to protect us from harm and ensure our safety then don’t the states have the right to protect themselves?

    I don’t think our founders intended for our representatives to be career politicians. This state has led to our elected officials being more protective of their own self interests and their voting blocks than protecting the citizens of the states. Today, the interests of our elected officials is all about power and control. To them our founding documents are living documents meant to change with the times. I am learning that it is just the opposite. Our founding documents are just as relevent today as they were at the time of their writing.

  24. Christina Quinn says:

    It is staggering to me from our vantage point now looking back through time that that we in this present generation have so much greater abilities than our forefathers to both study historical documents and communicate to our fellow citizens, yet do not. It was beyond comprehension that a day would come where information regarding all past and present civilizations, their failures and successes, their forms of governments would be or could be juxtaposed and weighed against each other. The vast superiority of Our Constitution is not even debatable in world history and is in fact I would suggest self-evident to all that apply their reason, but therein lies the rub. It was a given during the time of our forefathers that applied reason would win the argument and that the citizenry out of self-interest would deem it necessary to educate themselves in a form of government that was to be run by themselves. Out of all the considerations, safeguards, checks and balances, they sought to circumvent or eliminate in the wording of the Constitution the one blind spot now a glaring omission was not to mandate it’s reading by the citizenry. The implied self-interest of a government by the people for the people for our forefathers it went without saying that all citizens would know and read the Constitution and thus understand our foundation and liberty. Again beyond their comprehension would be a day that “self interest” for a majority of citizens regarding their government could be assessed as what they can “Get from” it not “Vest To” it, yet here we are. While “Foreign Force and influence” were on Jays mind clearly foreseen as a great potential threat not so was the idea of threat of domestic ignorance… that specter that topples all freedom and liberty, let us pray for the defeat of ignorance in our this Constitution Revolution:-) .

  25. I to am amazed at the foresight of the Founding Fathers. I’m as amazed at the ignorance or disregard from our current leaders to bring history forward as guidance on what NOT to do to overcome troubles today.

    Fed Paper #3 – As I read it, I couldn’t focus on the paper itself…all I could focus on is the relevance to Arizona vs. the Federal Government. Jay states that a national government is more likely derterrent for warding off war than astate…and I agree. But since the Federal Government has been unable the state has to step in.

  26. Ron Meier says:

    @ Janine, the Arizona situation seems to bring rebirth to the Confederation instead of the Union. Only 4 states share the Mexico border and our Representatives and Senators spend their days about 2,000 miles away in Washinton, DC, far from the points of conflict. Because they are so far away, and the 46 states they represent don’t have the samedirect problems with illegal immigration, they seem to be acting as if they lived in a Confederation, where they don’t care enough to act on the problem because the problem is not in their own districts.
    In many instances such as this, our elected representatives are acting more like delegates than representatives of a Republic. As delegates of a state, they vote only for those things that are problems for their own states; as representatives, they should be voting for those things that are in the national best interest, even if not in the best interest of their home state.

  27. Greg Zorbach says:

    @John Harris… I agree in your entire post, but would amplify your statement: “And the best way at the time was through diplomacy and not war.” It was probably true that in 1787 the new country was weak enough to the point that diplomacy was the only option in most cases of foreign provocation or dispute (therefore, the recurring argument for adoption of the proposed Constitution to replace the AOC in order to give the country a stronger national government). Several times in our history when we were not strong enough militarily, our diplomatic efforts proved to be impotent. The best explanation of national power or effectiveness in foreign affairs I have heard was presented at the Naval War College by a visiting lecturer from the government in the late 80’s: any nation’s power is like a stool with four legs. The legs are military power, economic power, national resolve or character, and the last one that depends the most on the other three – diplomatic skill. However, if the stool’s legs are not in relative balance, national effectiveness in foreign affairs (the most critical being the avoidance of war without resorting to the ‘tribute’ that led Jefferson to take on the Barbary pirates) is diminished. I believe that Chief Justice Jay was make this same point in argument for adoption in Federalist 3.

  28. Beverly Benson says:

    If our country became unified would it mean that we would have more people to select from in terms of making up the military force? And I guess I haven’t read the Articles of Confederation, but I noted that the Constitution allows the federal government of the U.S. to have a draft. Would unity mean that the founders wanted to be able to draft people from every single colony?

  29. Cindy Thompson says:

    Our country has truly been blessed to have men such as John Jay to take such an interest in the nation and to accept the risks that they did. It is really too bad that historians have tried to rewrite their profiles to turn them into lesser men. I am honored to read their essays and thankful for the Constitution we have. I’ll do my part to spread the word about it.

  30. Tricia says:

    It is amazing how persuasive the 3rd Federalist Paper is. I like how Publius used moderate language throughout the essay in order to gradually convince the reader of his cause. By the end, I found myself agreeing with him in the idea that “strength is peace.” I envy the eloquence of this essay!

  31. Seij De Leon says:

    The Federalist Papers no. 3 makes a point to explain how things will go well, concerning the people running the country. It states that the best men will serve the country, and to defend that explains that “for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States.” Like what Jesse Stewart was saying, this is nowadays an overall hollow statement, and I’m sure that John Jay could not of envisioned how things really work today. Just because there is a large selection of people to choose from does not mean the best men will be chosen, an unavoidable flaw in any society where the people can make decisions such as these.

  32. Nancy Martin says:

    It interests me that three men could agree so strongly on the benefits of the new constitution that they could all use the same pen name Publius. I’m curious about what this means in terms of the trust they had for one another?

  33. Shannon Castleman says:

    Nancy, thoughtful question. These men trusted each other because they were Statesmen, not “politicians”. They loved their new country more than they loved to disagree with one another.

    They don’t make people like that anymore, at least not many. Could you imagine Pelosi, Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, and a Libertarian doing this together?

    I can’t.

  34. Peter says:

    Dumas captured the spirit of Federalist #3 when he wrote “All for one – and one for all.”

  35. Susan Craig says:

    What has become inverted is the foundation of peace. What the founders here argued is that diplomacy functions best when supported by three legs. These legs are; one a strong defensive capability (making it hazardous to attack), two a strong economy (ability to sustain) and three a collective understanding of principle and the will to back them up. Currently termites are attacking all three legs and still insisting that diplomacy unsupported will work.

  36. Hello all. Peace through strength,,I think the founders knew this and up until these past few years that axiom has held us in a secure grip in a very dangerous world.Reality exists and to pretend that we can behave out side it because it suits our wishes is a dangerous and irresponsible failure of understanding.I expect our Government to be adults,people who will hold themselves errect and bear the burdens of truth, and this does not mean we are imperialist ,Facist,etc.These over the top charges make me wonder about the depth of understanding of those using these distructive words.It stikes me as as very young and immature teen who has heard a few new words and can’t wait to use them,and have no idea how foolish they appear .I am imbarrased for them most of the time.
    Strong mature silence is quiet and deliberate in its action and words. Unity is in our best interest and I pray for a leap of comprehension on the part of America.

  37. Andy Sparks says:

    Shannon, you may find it interesting to know that two of the people who wrote the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) went on to become bitter enemies. Madison switched sides so to speak, and joined Jefferson’s Republicans and denounced and worked against Hamilton’s Federalists, and vice versa. Once the Constitution was ratified, they did not work together as statesmen, but became politicians.

  38. Patrina L. says:

    RE the statement by Seij De Leon: “Just because there is a large selection of people to choose from does not mean the best men will be chosen, an unavoidable flaw in any society where the people can make decisions such as these.”

    It is true that people can, have done, and will make mistakes in selecting their leaders via their voters’ voice; however, I fear how much WORSE it would be if the PEOPLE did NOT have the power to make these monumental choices…

    Would anyone want the current leaders (or any leaders, for that matter) making these important choices of leadership for us? How much worse would that be? We, as a people, have the CHOICE to oust, what we perceive to be as, any bad lot of leaders at the voter’s box. This is what gives US the power. We must jealously guard it through our own education regarding our national history and our current events. This is what Benjamin Franklin meant when asked by a woman what kind of government the Founding Fathers had given the Country. He responded, “A Republic- if you can keep it.” His answer implies that we bear an ACTIVE responsibility toward maintaining our power as a people. Not only must we educate ourselves, but we must also actively exercise our freedoms through voting. We have been given a rich wealth of freedom and power through our national inheritance, but we cannot become passive because our inheritance will not maintain itself. We, as the ones who have inherited this great gift, have an ETERNAL RESPONSIBILITY toward ACTIVELY preserving it by being knowledgeable, diligent, and vigilant regarding its upkeep, or else it will be stolen from us while we slumber. We the People must insist upon learning about our inheritance of power and freedom, and preserving it through proper tending, or else it will surely wilt and die, yielding us nothing but disappointment and grief, making us very poor inheritors, indeed.

    So, the truth of the matter is that if the PEOPLE did not make the choices of leadership, the outcomes would be far worse. I believe that is why the Founding Fathers put the “US” in the USA.

  39. CJ says:

    Amazing how forthright the Founders were and how devastated they’d be today.
    There are certainly a lot of words and as my High School teacher said of my essays….”flowery pansies”….The speaking back then certainly were colorful.

    In my mind I summed it up to: Together we are strong, separate open to prey..

    In this section of Federalist 2 it seems to be their lack of foresight and elitism that America would be a people of thesame kind and equal in religion manners and customs…CJ

    Federalist 2……
    ..”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…”

    These paragraphs in 4 struck out at me: CJ

    Federalist 4
    …”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.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>.
    hostility and insult have been invited. CJ
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    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….”
    >>>>>>>>
    …. “Have our wars been sanctified by justice……”CJ

    …………
    This is sad for our government has put us in this position…I fear today with this administration even more so.
    America was so very young…… CJ


 

Posted in Federalist Paper 03, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Guest Constitutional Scholars, W.B. Allen, Ph.D. | No Comments »

May 3, 2010 – Federalist No. 4 – Cathy Gillespie

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

May 3, 2010 – Federalist No. 4 – Cathy Gillespie

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Hello from Virginia! I made it back from Texas in the wee hours of the morning, thanks to some thunderstorms and unexpected equipment on the runway at Reagan National Airport!

To all who have been posting – Thank you!! We invite all our visitors to add their comments! We love the sense of community, and are learning so much from each of you.  If you have a question, please ask it, and if we can’t answer it, hopefully some of our blog participants can!

Federalist #4 elaborates upon a phrase stated in the preamble to the Constitution: ”We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I’m reminded of a quote of a famous Texan from the 1970′s and 1980″s, Eddie Chiles, who said all he wanted the federal government to do was defend the shores, deliver the mail, and leave him alone!  It is no accident that Eddie Chiles started his quote with “defend the shores,” and that so many of the first Federalist Papers touch on this theme of defending our country.  It is one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution that the federal government is best equipped to perform.

The other quote that caught my eye was the last phrase: “……how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.”  As citizens of the United States, the more common ground we can find with each other, the better. And the more educated our citizens are about the founding principles of our country, the easier it will be for us to find common ground.

Good night!

Cathy Gillespie

7 Responses to “May 3, 2010 – Federalist No. 4 – Cathy Gillespie”

  1. Bill Kenagy says:

    Note in the preable it says, “promote the general welfare.” Not to provide for the general welfare.

  2. Bache says:

    A quote from Benjamin Franklin…” The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” His saying reflects the ideology of the preamble “to promote the general welfare.”

  3. Roger Jett says:

    Good Morning Cathy Gillespie and All !

    In penning what was to become our national anthem, Francis Scott Key in 1814 at Fort McHenry, in his second verse and fourth verse, continued on the theme, “defend our shores” :

    On the shore, dimly seen through the mist of the deep,
    Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
    What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
    As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses ?
    Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
    In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
    ‘Tis the star-spangled banner ! Oh long may it wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave

    Oh! thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
    Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
    Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
    Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation,
    Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
    And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

    May God bless us, preserve us and keep us brave and free!

  4. The equality of all people stand on the OPPORTUNITY that our freedom provides. We all have the same OPPORTUNITY to “pursue happiness” without the overreach of government taking from one and giving to another. Everyone has the same opportunity to work hard and succeed, what one chooses to do with that opportunity is up to them. And if you think someone needs help use your money to help them don’t take mine(not that I have any) But I believe that we “reap what we sow” so I’m still sowing baby………

  5. Julie Bedard says:

    @Bill Kenagy—well said. There is a big difference between “promote” and “provide”. The next queston becomes–what did they mean when they wrote “general welfare”? As we know this also has been twisted and misconstrued throughout time to move towards “social justice” policies. I take it to mean “to promote the general welfare of the UNION”–again to protect and defend the Union from external and internal sources so it remains intact for all people within the Union to live peacefully and pursue their dreams without fear of disharmony, chaos, and war.

  6. Susan Craig says:

    The conflict of promote and provide occurs within the constitution itself. The Preamble says promote while article 1 says provide.

  7. Kellie says:

    @Julie Bedard: Well said on the issue of interpreting the “general welfare” of the Union. I have found that those truly well-versed on the Constitution know and understand that meaning to be for the protection of the Union from external and internal sources, NOT that we provide welfare to those in need within the Union, as is currently interpreted. My fear is that it’s proper meaning is not being taught in the schools…

 

 

Posted in Federalist Paper 04, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essay Project, Federalist Paper Forum 2010 Essays by Cathy Gillespie | No Comments »

« Older Entries