Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

Contradicting Hamilton, Smith believes that the people are not capable of preventing the infringement of their liberties; instead there should be written guarantees in the Constitution. Was he right, and why?

As history has proven, the "people" are very capable of infringing upon their own liberties. Smith was caught up in the spirit of the times instead of the eventual spirit of the party.

Perhaps some more guarantees in the Constitution would have been beneficial, perhaps with clarifications and penalties attached, but we now see that the current guarantees (invasion - republican form of government) mean nothing; possibly because no soul is held accountable.

A BTT for the evening crowd. We’re almost to the end of the project now. A mere half-dozen more pieces and both Federalist and anti-Federalist will sit back and contemplate the government they have just given to the nation. Then the real work will commence.

So when was this anti-Federalist written, last summer? ;)

Discussion Topics

Smith raises the specter of class distinctions, pointing out that middle class representatives will have less of a tendency to spend than richer representatives. Likewise he argues that men of the middle class are of greater moral fiber than the rich. He argues that government by the rich will lead to oppression, while government by the middle class will not. None of this has not been borne out by history. Why?

Well he hits all the right points. People who are good with people tend to get rich. More opportunities come their way and they have a better understanding of how to work them. Why hasn’t this lead to oppression? Having a good understanding of people, the rich understand that those who work with them work better when they are involved in the planning and execution. It’s human nature such that even the most narrowly focused person wants to know what they are doing is the best thing to do. People don’t work well when they are exploited. Where this hasn’t proven to be true is when people get stuck in a certain place i.e. small towns. immigrants, slaves, people in the hills of Appalachia. As long as the "Middling" class is able to move, they can find a better situation, have some control over their lives and provide a check on those who would use their superior social skills to take advantage of them.

Smith points out the endemic corruption of European governments, believing that America can offer an alternative to this. Yet corruption was endemic in the colonial and state legislatures and in the Confederation Congress. Why did Smith get this one wrong?

Don’t know. Maybe he believed in his countrymen.

Contradicting Hamilton, Smith believes that the people are not capable of preventing the infringement of their liberties; instead there should be written guarantees in the Constitution. Was he right, and why?

Nope. Disagree. All the words in the word, strung together in just the right way can’t save a people willing to be oppressed. We have to depend on ourselves.

Smith understands that despotism cannot happen overnight, but must proceed incrementally. He views the Constitution as a tool in this process. Was he right, and why?

Oh yes certainly. I think he correctly pointed out the many of the flaws of the constitution, especially when it comes to how it intersected with the flaws of human character. What he failed to foresee was the extent we would become ruled by lawyers. A majority of Senators are lawyers and more than a third in the house. They all believe in the goodness of laws and process. We’ve become saturated with little laws everywhere, especially in our tax code. Where the law is vague, they’ve set up a legal process that can decide most anything. Thinking about it, I probably have to deal with more laws at work than when I pay my taxes. It’s a drain. Then, since these lawyers don’t have the expertise to understand environmental, financial, etc. issues, they turn over their law making responsibility to the bureaucracy only defining the process by which more newer laws are made. I have to think that Smith was right, that our House does not have the skills of the common people and uses the one skill all the rich share, social skill, to guide it’s effort.

The constitution has created a framework for more laws. Moreover since it is a national constitution, we can't move away from it and still stay in America like the "Middling" class could before the constitution was ratified.

Under discussion point 3, pointing out Smith's belief that "the People" might not be capable of preventing infringements on their rights, his concern was valid, and that is why the Framers written Constitution enumerated, separated, balanced, checked and confined the valid ability to amend that Constitution to the written Constitution's own provision.

Additionally, the Founders understood that what they called "virtue among the people" was essential, so that the written, as well as the "unwritten" constitution in the hearts of the people would agree.

That would require what they called "an enlightened people." In a Bicentennial of the Constitution book entitled, "Our Ageless Constitution," there appears the following essay, reprinted with permission:

An Enlightened, Committed People Who Understand The Principles Of Our Constitution

- The Most Effective Means Of Preserving Liberty

"Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant - they have been cheated; asleep - they have been surprised; divided - the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? ...the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it.... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free." James Madison

America's Constitution is the means by which knowledgeable and free people, capable of self-government, can bind and control their elected representatives in government. In order to remain free, the Founders said, the people themselves must clearly understand the ideas and principles upon which their Constitutional government is based. Through such understanding, they will be able to prevent those in power from eroding their Constitutional protections.

The Founders established schools and seminaries for the distinct purpose of instilling in youth the lessons of history and the ideas of liberty. And, in their day, they were successful. Tocqueville, eminent French jurist, traveled America and in his 1830's work, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, wrote:

". . . every citizen ... is taught . . . the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution ... it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon."

On the frontier, he noted that "...no sort of comparison can be drawn between the pioneer and the dwelling that shelters him.... He wears the dress and speaks the language of the cities; he is acquainted with the past, curious about the future, and ready for argument about the present.... I do not think that so much intellectual activity exists in the most enlightened and populous districts of France' " He continued, "It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic; and such must always be the case...where the instruction which enlightens the understanding is not separated from the moral education.."

Possessing a clear understanding of the failure of previous civilizations to achieve and sustain freedom for individuals, our forefathers discovered some timeless truths about human nature, the struggle for individual liberty, the human tendency toward abuse of power, and the means for curbing that tendency through Constitutional self-government. Jefferson's Bill For The More General Diffusion Of Knowledge For Virginia declared:

"...experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government), those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate...the minds of the people...to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth. History, by apprizing them of the past, will enable them to judge of the future...it will qualify them judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.."

Education was not perceived by the Founders to be a mere process for teaching basic skills. It was much, much more. Education included the very process by which the people of America would understand and be able to preserve their liberty and secure their Creator-endowed rights. Understanding the nature and origin of their rights and the means of preserving them, the people would be capable of self government, for they would recognize any threats to liberty and "nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud." (Adams)