This was another one that jumped out at me when I first read the "Anti-Federalist Papers." We've come a long way -- and I'm not at all happy at where we are.
Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people." Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet — a government of all others the most to be dreaded.
Thank you very much Jim. The extensive study of the Federalist Papers and other documents circa the period surrounding the creation of our nation, would lead one to realize that WE HAVE ALLOWED OUR NATION TO BECOME SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER BEEN THE INTENTION OF OUR FOREFATHERS. And how much less the realization of the ideal will be, should we persue the move toward globalism and world government. Every step that removes the individual citizen farther away from the seat of decision making that affects their lives, the worse their lives will become.
It is the socialist state that we have become that disturbs me, and the complete and utter lack of individuals to recognize it, that convinces me that we are powerless to right the ship of state. Only through the concerted focused efforts of an entity such as FreeRepublic, could that possibly be reversed. Onward then...
The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates should be required reading for every American before graduation from High School, and every prospective American citizen.
It's clear that the anti-federalists simply wanted the protections afforded by a stronger union, be abhorred the proposed Constitution, especially with it's lack of a Bill of Rights. Too much power was to be given up, and the new government a despotic monolith that would crush the states at will. Numerous states, especially New York, wrote into their ratification (a contract) that the powers not delegated to the new Federal government were retained by the states, and required a Bill of Rights.
The Federalists promised that this was the case, and that the national government would be limited. The problem was, we fell for it.
Thanks for posting this and the other Anti-Federalist papers. We were so close to a republic that could last for a long time.
Honest question: Do you think that the Federalists saw greed as an opportunity to exert influence to make personal gain or merely capitulation to form a more perfect union?
At some point, if you can get the bandwidth, Would it be possible to have text of the Constitution available as a destination? Or failing that, links to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers?
Just a suggestion...
Witch
Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. bling, bling.
But I found his first use of this principle even more apt:
"; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. "
The Founders seemed to count heavily upon the States to be a check to the national government's accretion of power.
Absent some event I can't imagine ( though, God willing, He can) the States will in a few generations be less than handmaidens to the national government.
( The good articles are always posted so late.)
I wonder though whether any consitution could have prevented the decline: seems to me the disconnect between state representatives and their constituents is just as bad.
Would a weaker fedgov simply have resulted in a number of petty tyrannies?
In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed...
...If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.
There's so much here to discuss, but I'm going to stick to this one issue because it is one I have been considering for several months. While doing away with the 17th amendment will help, it does not fix the real disconnect between the federal representatives/senators and their constituents.
It is all about the money. The states should be responsible for paying and determining the salaries of their representatives. If the states had control of the money in their legislators pockets, they would have control of their representation in the federal government. The feds could not vote themselves a raise twice a year like they do now. Not every senator would make the same pay. In order to get a raise or to justify the current salary, they would have to earn it. They would be directly accountable to their constituencies who would determine the pay.
I know it sounds a bit off-beat, but Hugh Akston's been working with me on some "ideas" to make something like this work. It is doable.
Please direct all your questions to Hugh Akston. LOL!