Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2

Jay once again is arguing with phantoms. He's making the case for something which was not in question, apparantly continuing his theme from the last essay of conflating opposition to the Constitution with disunionism, and on the flipside, conflating the benefits of union with the benefits of the Constitution.

In reality, the question was not union or disunion. The question was whether to keep their federal system or replace it with the consolidated national system of the new Constitution.

“Because 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 to manage it, 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.”

I'm really starting to hate this guy.. John Kerry pops into my mind when I read this. Puffed up with unearned money and elitism.

Despite this.. He makes some good points but he is profoundly naive.

The ubermenshen that are so wise to want to rule over us couldn't possibly have ulterior motives, like power, greed, political ideology that would put the nation at risk.

•At 27, Jay points out that states have caused Indian wars, but not the federal government, no matter how feeble it may have been. At 31 and 32, he argues that federal men will be cooler and less prideful than men from the state governments. At 34, he states that with power comes greater confidence from a greater nation. To what extent is right?

Line 27 appears to be an outlier compared to his prior arguments. One can accept that there was no 'official' declaration of war against Indians in part or in whole but the effects of alliances and treaties would have a negative impact on a large scale and soon be realized. Retributions against the Loyalists did not distinguish between Europeans and Indians.

He describes a great gathering of able men to the benefit of all. It can also be interpreted as having the ability to control remote areas and future states from a central authority.

The power of the government ultimately rests with the individual. Given to states or the union, the source remains the same. Jay makes a valid point that a larger group of individuals uniting together has an exponentially stronger bargaining position. He is too willing to overlook the fact (as sig226 says in post 3) "Often the king’s men do not care about the best interests of the king."

24 So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the safety of the people.

It is understandable that 'one world government' was not an issue at the time. The world influence of a country was generally defined by the range of it's weapons, ships being one of the farthest ranging. Today is different, of course, and we have ICBMs. The consolidation of all governments of our planet would be the logical outcome of his ideology.