Posted on 12/08/2009 9:35:50 AM PST by Loud Mime
This paper is an enjoyable read, especially its fourth paragraph that describes some of the new lands that made up the new nation.
Jay defines some elements that promised a great nation:
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
We cannot even have an official language of the federal government.
I am of the opinion that if this nation seeks any concert in society, having English as the official language of the federal government is a necessity.
This convention, composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
I recommend reading this entire essay, which follows:
To the People of the State of New York:
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.
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.
It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
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.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.
This convention, composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.
These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
PUBLIUS
Show me the defamation of John Jay.
Incorrect. The United States in Congress voted to send delegates to amend the articles, specifically to give the general government the power to regulate commerce and the power to collect taxes to pay off its debts. There was agreement among the states on these points. No one was arguing for disunion. Hamilton in #1 and Jay in #2 both question the motives of their opponents, rather than deal in the substance. They are the ones using strawmen, as if the choice was Constitution or disunion and anarchy. There were other choices. Like amending the Articles,i.e., staying within the scope of what you were tasked to do.
Perhaps. I wonder how much of that was driven by lack of technology. The world is a much smaller place these days.
-PJ
Incorrect. The United States in Congress voted to send delegates to amend the articles, specifically to give the general government the power to regulate commerce and the power to collect taxes to pay off its debts. There was agreement among the states on these points. No one was arguing for disunion. Hamilton in #1 and Jay in #2 both question the motives of their opponents, rather than deal in the substance. They are the ones using strawmen, as if the choice was Constitution or disunion and anarchy. There were other choices. Like amending the Articles,i.e., staying within the scope of what you were tasked to do.
Free men can change their form of government. Right? All thirteen states ratified the Constitution. Were they all clueless as you describe Madison?
Notice that federal government taxation of real estate didn’t make the cut into the Constitution. A good thing. Right?
Free association of people is an unalienable right. We started with thirteen states very suspicious of each other. Our Constitution voluntarily drew them together. It was something of a miracle.
I almost forgot, how’s that Swiss Confederacy coming along?
Thanks very much for the ping. Very interesting, informative and extremely educational thread. Huck’s contribution / Jacquerie’s counterpoint is tremendous. Thanks to all posters.
BTTT!!!
American history makes the compelling argument. If that doesn’t convince you my words won’t either. But, you shouldn’t go saying things that aren’t supported by reality.
To talk against the Constitution is to talk against America.
I believe the problem is with how it is managed. I find more faults with people than with the constitution.
For some time I have maintained that the problems we suffer in politics is not from our Constitution, but from poor management.
There was some story a while back where a parking valet had crashed an expensive Ferrari; nobody blamed the car.
If a murder is committed by a firearm, what type of person blames the gun? What type of person wants gun control?
The human element can destroy the best designs of machine or government. That’s a fact that deserves serious consideration, not one that should be trivialized.
Blaming our Constitution for our problems strikes me as an argument ripe with typical liberalism. One needs to believe the living and breathing applications of law in order to violate the Constitution’s principles; and you need to excuse the improper behavior of managers to support your argument.
If one does that, it means that laws mean little to nothing. Once that tactic is used, every law and every proposed law is meaningless. So, the Constitution is meaningless; if it is meaningless, how can you blame the Constitution?
Ergo, arguments against the Constitution are meaningles.
Q.E.D.
Excellent and well put.
Read Davy Crockett’s Not Yours To Give for additional insights.
No it isn't. There was a United States of America for quite a while without the Constitution. Fought and won a revolution without it, matter of fact.
What's the priority? I think it ought to be liberty.
Now let's say we've got a cage, but the bars are too far apart, and a few lions escape through the bars and maul some people to death. Let's say the latch on the door is faulty, and a few big lions go right out the front door and kill the trained chimps and the bearded lady.
Do we blame the lions? Or the cage? Your argument boils down to this:
If the lions would behave and not try to escape, the cage would work fine.
Or alternately, it's this:
The Constitution, even though it doesn't work, is still the best system there is because no system with people involved will work.
I'm offering another possibility: There might be a system that would work better than the Constitution as written.
It's possible, no?
The human element can destroy the best designs of machine or government. That’s a fact that deserves serious consideration, not one that should be trivialized.
That's true. But it's ESPECIALLY true of government, which Patrick Henry called "nothing more than a choice among evils." And based on that fact, one goal or principle ought to be to keep government as small and contained as possible.
You wreck a car, it's done. It's a one-time event. You can call your insurance company, talk to the cops, and get on with your life. You wreck your government, and it's still going to be there harassing you tomorrow, and the day after, and the year after, and so on.
How long does the Constitution have to be "mismanaged" before it's deemed ineffective? 200 years is not enough? The fact is the Constitution IS a living document. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent judges from interpreting the Constitution in broad ways, and they have been doing so since the very beginning, with the general power growing slowly and steadily all the while. And try undoing it! Try undoing all those years worth of commerce clause legislation. Try undoing incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Let me know how it goes.
In the meanwhile, we are living under a broad national power. The only real check at this point is democracy. How do you feel about that?
and you need to excuse the improper behavior of managers to support your argument.
Improper? Who is to say? Under the Constitution, that is a political question.
The audio clips of Pelosi and others muttering and stuttering when asked about the constitutionality of obummercare are typical and frightening.
These people recognize no limit on their power.
And that would be . . . ?
It isn't enough to simply blame failure of a system on bad actors and leave it at that. When it comes to government, bad actors are an input you should and MUST count on.
I'm not saying you can devise a perfect system, but I am saying you can devise a better one. One that is sturdier and less prone to broad interpretation.
The biggest question of all, it seems to me, is the question of judicial review. SCOTUS cases become so entrenched in the law, that any hope to change, correct, or undo long-standing jurisprudence beccmes slim to none after a few years. A little time goes by, and it becomes part of the law, just as if it were written in the Constitution. Then you wake up one day to find that arch-conservative originalist Antonin Scalia has written a majority opinion citing Wickard v Fillburn. He joked about it from the bench--"I used to laugh at Wickard."
A new system would have to come up with a different way of dealing with interpretations of the Constitution itself. Let em go nuts on statutes, but there needs to be a check on the judges when it comes to the fundamental question of Constitutional interpretation. Not sure what that would be, but without it, I guarantee you are not going to have a government with "few and defined" powers.
Judicial review, to me, is a fatal flaw. And while it isn't explicitly in the Constitution, it is implicitly there, as the appeal process ends with them on all cases. It was understood at the time by Federalists and anti-Federalists alike that the Court would interpret the meaning of the Constitution, as law. That's the biggest gaping leak in the whole system.
Bad actors are a given. In government, ambition, scheming, avarice, these are NORMS! We need a system that is based on a sturdier, less maleable Constitution, one that proves to be in practice much more resistant to jackals and thieves.
Get rid of the flowery language. Get specific. There are a lot of things you could change that would have a positive impact, based on the data.
Possibly a new Constitution.
That's my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.