FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution, Federalist #1

A Publius/Billthedrill Essay | 22 February 2010 | Publius & Billthedrill

[loveliberty2]

With now over 200 years of history behind us, and an array of problems facing us, some of which are related to the path away from a currency of intrinsic value, banking, and other assorted departures from the 1787 Constitution's provisions, perhaps this might be a good time to look at a historical point of view from closer to 1787.

I always find that to be John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address before the New York Historical Society. Not a mere history from a professor or historian, Adams' account, it seems to me, comes from an authoritative source, when one considers his mentors, Abigail and John Adams, as well as his service in various capacities in the new government.

There, he reviews, at great length, the great philosophical departures from the Declaration of Independence encountered under the Articles of Confederation, and the progress made under the 1787 Constitution, which incorporated the ideas of liberty enshrined in the Declaration and, in his opinion, were a return to the principles of the Declaration.

[Publius]

What the ????

Don't forget that there were mobs running around New York City destroying printing presses as a part of this debate. I think this is what Hamilton is referring to.

[Bigun]

How has that affected your view of Washington, post-war?

Not much really. I think Washington was well aware of Hamilton's ambitions and used him to his advantage. Remember that it was Washington who warned us against political faction (parties) war and said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

[UAConservative]

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.

While we may not all agree on Hamilton's motives, we must consider the words he spoke above. The Articles were in shambles, and the Constitutional Convention came together to amend them; rather, a new document was founded and sent to the states for ratification. It was here that the destiny of the republic was to be determined.

Fast forward to today; our federal system of government is a shell of what it used to stand for: liberty. The central government constantly bullies the states with useless programs. 0bama constantly tries to move us further away from the Constitution that our Founders set as a rigid framework for our nation.

Like the legislatures and citizens of New York in 1787, we now have a choice. Defend the republic and "re-ratify" the Constitution, or die. The wrong choice by the people will extinguish the flame of freedom and the world will continue its plunge towards despotism and nanny-state policies.

It's your choice America; make the right one; choose liberty.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening.

The general population needs to read this, and all of the Federalist papers.

Never mind, I would be happy if the general population were well versed in our Constitution.

5.56mm

[sig226]

It struck me that way, too, and it must have occurred to others who demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Yet it’s ironic that the state government were the ones who insisted on the bill of rights. In some way, the ideal of self interest conflicted the perversion of self interest. The states had experienced oppression by the King, and then freedom, which was failing them. It’s that taste of individual liberty that we seem to lack today.

[YHAOS]

"It’s that taste of individual liberty that we seem to lack today."

Amen. And that's the nub of it.

[Huck]

I don't know. For me, the more I study Washington post-war, it gets tougher and tougher to put him on the pedestal. I always automatically revered him. Who knows? Maybe he's was right. Maybe we are stuck with this much centralized government. Maybe it's the best of all possible worlds. It's a shame if true.

I guess it comes down to whether you see the Constitution as the source of the problem or not. I think after 200 years of steady and unchecked growth of national power, it's a bit weak to simply say it'd be fine "if only." If only pigs could fly, I say.

Washington wanted America to be an empire. He used the word several times. He got his wish. Hamilton was right there with him. If anyone got used, it was Madison and Jefferson. Madison, who I also used to revere, comes off like a dupe.

[Huck]

Hey Publius, that reminds me. Do you have any good research on the identity of Brutus? It seems there is a loose consensus, unproved, that it was Robert Yates. But I question that. Brutus’s essays on the judiciary are some of his best (implied powers being the other real deadly critique), but he mentions at some point that he is NOT expert in the law, and is merely extrapolating. Was that supposed to be a lie? I don’t know. Pity to not know his identity, but pretty crazy, too.

[Publius]

The standard references that one finds on the Net seem to agree that Yates was Brutus. He may have made that comment about not being versed in the law as an attempt to disguise his identity.

[bamahead]

bookmark

[loveliberty2]

Is anyone using this source for materials related to these discussions?

Essays on the Constitution of the United States, published during its discussion by the people 1787-1788 (1892)

Author: Ford, Paul Leicester, 1865-1902; Sullivan, James, 1744-1808; Winthrop, James, 1752-1821; Gerry, Elbridge, 1744-1814; Ellsworth, Oliver, 1745-1807; Williams, William, 1731-1811; Williamson, Hugh, 1735-1819 Subject: United States; United States Publisher: Brooklyn, N.Y., Historical printing club Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT Language: English Call number: AEO-6610 Digitizing sponsor: MSN Book contributor: Robarts - University of Toronto Collection: toronto

Description Sullivan, J. The letters of "Cassius".- Winthrop, J. The letters of "Agrippa".- Gerry, E. Replies to "A landholder".- Ellsworth, O. Letters of "A landholder".- Williams, W. A letter to "A landholder".- Sherman, R. The letters of "A countryman".- Sherman, R. The letters of "A citizen of New Haven".- Yates, R. The letters of "Sydney".- Brackenridge, H.H. Cursory remarks on the Constitution.- Chase, S. A letter of "Caution".- Carroll, D. A letter of "A friend to the Constitution".- Martin, L. Letters.- Roane, S. A letter of "A plain dealer".- Williamson, H. Remarks on the Constitution.- Pinckney, C. A letter of "A steady and open Republican".- Bibliography.- Index. 1. U.S. Constitution. 2. U.S. Constitution - Bibl. U.S. - Constitutional history - Sources. I. Sullivan, James, 1744-1808. II. Winthrop, James, 1752-1821. III. Gerry, Elbridge, 1744-1814. IV. Ellsworth, Oliver, 1745-1807. V. Williams, William, 1731-1811. VI. Sherman, Roger, 1721-1793. VII. Clinton, George, 1739-1812. VIII. Hamilton, Alexander, 1757-1804. IX. Yates, Robert, 1738-1801. X. Brackenridge, Hugh Henry, 1748-1816. XI. Chase, Samuel, 1741-1811. XII. Carroll, Daniel, 1756-1829. XIII. Martin, Luther, 1744-1826. XIV. Roane, Spencer, 1762-1822. XV. Williamson, Hugh, 1735-1819. XVI. Pinckney, Charles, 1858-1824

I have found the Univ. of Toronto site to be a useful place to find readable texts of many other rare documents as well.

[Amagi]

I'm a little late to this thread, but I'm beginning a self study of the Federalist Papers and I was hoping that I could ask if anyone is willing to offer an interpretation of certain sections the meanings of which elude me.
For instance, from Federalist Paper #1, I'm unsure of what Hamilton is about here:
"An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, 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."
Do you suppose any posters from when this thread originally rolled out would be willing to go through the Papers again?
TIA
Also, I would like to be included in your ping list.

[Publius]

Ping to Billthedrill for the previous post.

I rarely invoke this ping list, but you're on it.