Posted on 02/01/2010 7:56:26 AM PST by Publius
The author’s. I have maintained his italicization, and in cases where the author preferred all capitals — no doubt thanks to the printing exigencies of the time — I have rendered them in italics, which would be the modern usage.
His answer is a group of small republics united in the sphere of foreign relations. To what extent was he right? Is he right today, with a much larger country?
I think he was dead on. I much prefer government to be localized because I like the competition aspect, and IMO there is more liberty. But it seems to me Bryan was not looking at what he would prefer, but what would not dissolve into despotism. Many may argue that the limiting factor was speed of communication, and therefore the situation is much different today, but I believe the inherent problem with large government is that it separates the legislators from the citizens to a great extent. Chances are very good that my senators will NEVER even meet me. I'm not saying we need to shoot pool every Friday night, but there should at least be a chance that we might encounter each other.
Is despotism inevitable, and why or why not?
No, but darn close. There are those that will struggle endlessly for it. I happen to be of the opinion that it will take something big (near revolution or major economic depression) to bring about a return to the love of liberty. Unfortunately, in the two biggest examples we have seen so far we have moved in exactly the wrong direction.
Mr. Bryan's artillery barrage hit a target there.
No man shall sit in congress longer than two years successively, nor be capable of reelection for three Years afterwards: and no person who holds any office in the gift of the congress shall hereafter be elected to represent this commonwealth in congress.
Pennsylvania enacted term limits for its congressmen in its constitution. That is what Bryan is referring to.
...but I believe the inherent problem with large government is that it separates the legislators from the citizens to a great extent.
This is a critical point. Were we to adhere to the rule of 30,000, then we would have 10,000 congressmen in the House today. This is why I've begun to think that we should maintain the House of Repesentatives on the Internet and actually have those 10,000 congresscrittters. They would never leave home, would be available to their constituents 24/7, and would work via secure server. Bribing that many congressmen would be much more difficult than bribing 435.
Technically, your senator should be reporting to your state legislature, and you shouldn't need to see him.
I happen to be of the opinion that it will take something big (near revolution or major economic depression) to bring about a return to the love of liberty.
A collapse of the economy and the currency might suffice, with the forced return to a hard currency of some kind, perhaps gold, silver, oil, or a basket of commodities. Whatever it is would require that people no longer look to goverment to provide their daily bread.
The citizens of the Soviet Union faced that challenge when their nation collapsed. An entire generation had been brought up under Brezhnev, relying on the government to provide everything. Once the system disappeared, they had to survive by learning new skills. Today there is more economic freedom in Russia than the US, but the Russians still don't have the rule of law.
My impression of Mr. Bryan is that he, very strongly, embodies what was communicated by the quote below.
“It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government.”
Mercy Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, 1805
Thanks. I really found this to be interesting. I am especially struck by the notations with respect to general welfare, and the necessity of virtue needed for a Republican form of Government.
With all due respect, that would be your fault... and you have your subject backward... it should be YOU that meets your senator.
Gaining an audience with my representative, the representative that covers the district where my office is located, my state representatives and state senator has been suprizingly easy. Getting an audience with one of the U.S. Senators has been more difficult, but not impossible. Knowing their staff is perhaps more important and much easier to accomplish.
BTW, I do like that I run into my representative (Joe Barton) at the Kroger or elsewhere in the neighborhood about once a quarter. I always make a point of saying hello and reminding him where he has met me in the past. I realize he probably doesn't care, but I like to think that when I do meet him in his office that at least my face is familier...(sans bag, of course)
At Bryan's time, wealth came from the land. The large landowners of New York probably constituted his idea of a great disparity of wealth. The patroon families of that state held a huge amount of the land and had armies of tenant farmers to run them. Lacking land of their own, these tenant farmers were not permitted to vote. There were few smallholdings in the Hudson Valley.
I suspect this is what Bryan had in mind when he wrote that sentence.
“25 Mr. Adams’ sine qua non of a good government is three balancing powers whose repelling qualities are to produce an equilibrium of interests and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community.
26 He asserts that the administrators of every government will ever be actuated by views of private interest and ambition to the prejudice of the public good; that therefore the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare is to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies in the exercise of the powers of government and balanced by those of a third.
27 This hypothesis supposes human wisdom competent to the task of instituting three coequal orders in government and a corresponding weight in the community to enable them respectively to exercise their several parts, and whose views and interests should be so distinct as to prevent a coalition of any two of them for the destruction of the third.
28 Mr. Adams, although he has traced the constitution of every form of government that ever existed, as far as history affords materials, has not been able to adduce a single instance of such a government; he indeed says that the British Constitution is such in theory, but this is rather a confirmation that his principles are chimerical and not to be reduced to practice.
29 If such an organization of power were practicable, how long would it continue?
30 Not a day, for there is so great a disparity in the talents, wisdom and industry of mankind that the scale would presently preponderate to one or the other body, and with every accession of power the means of further increase would be greatly extended.”
That is a very insightful statement on the part of Mr. Bryan and one which has been proven true as a practical matter.
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to say that I can’t meet with them if I try. I was trying to show how disconnected we are. I probably should have said something like ‘a legislator who sees most of his constituency in church every Sunday is going to be a lot more “fearful”...’
"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called if Congress pleased provisions for the general welfare."
I am not aware of a single law since that was overturned because it exceeded enumerated powers. It will be something of a miracle if any of Hussein's assaults on our Supreme Law are found unconstitutional.
The word junto is used (Verse 74 "would either become the head of the aristocratic junto in that body or its minion") and refers to an exclusive club started by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia around 1727.All members lived in Philadelphia and came from diverse areas of interest and business.
Given that the Authors Father was a political figure who enjoyed support from the rural areas of Pennsylvania and more of a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin than the Author himself, the seemingly casual insertion of the word may indicate a negative view of the original Pennsylvania Good Old Boys Club?
A good source of information about the Father of the Author of discussion may be found here . There was speculation that the Father was Centinel but was later found not to be. I'm sure that the influence and reputation of his Father was great and gave great weight to his arguments.
There had been much contention between the rural/frontier areas of Pennsylvania and the urban/Philadelphia powers. Unlike today, those in power had a real fear that an angry mounted mob would take time out of their pioneering endeavors to 'run the rascals out' and in fact it had happened previously. Samuel Bryan must have been aware of the disdain the phrase 'aristocratic junto' would evoke in those outside of Philadelphia.
As to the question 'Is there room for elites in American governance' I contend that, yes, there is room for elites. Any other response would point to an elitism itself.
Ok....you are guilty of redirecting me to Mark Steyn, Live Free or Die lecture. LOL.
In 1995, a book was published that explained why FDR was able to get his way with the Court even before he managed to put his own people on it, and the key was the Gold Clauses case.
In 1937, Roosevelt had heard through the grapevine that the Court was going to clobber him in a 5-4 vote over the Gold Clauses, and a defeat there would have undone the 1933 gold confiscation and probably the New Deal itself. FDR quietly passed word to the Federal Marshals Service that soon he might give an order to not enforce an edict of the Court. He made sure that Chief Justice Hughes got word of what was about to happen to him and the Court.
Under normal circumstances, this would have been an impeachable offense. But Roosevelt had just won re-election in a landslide, and his party was in absolute control of Congress. No one was going to impeach FDR over refusing to enforce an order of the Supreme Court.
Like Roosevelt, Hughes had once been the governor of New York, and he was an intelligent political animal. He knew that if push came to shove, Roosevelt would revive his previously defeated court-packing plan, and this time he would win. FDR had within his grasp the means to destroy the Supreme Court as an institution, and he knew that Congress would be on his side, perhaps even the people.
Hughes switched his vote, and Roosevelt won the Gold Clauses case by 5-4. During the remainder of 1937, and before he got enough of his people on the Court, Roosevelt bullied the Court, getting the decisions he needed to create his new paradigm of the federal government in every aspect of life, the foundation of the New Deal. And he did it with a secret threat.
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.