The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 3.

This paper is titled CONCERNING DANGERS FROM FOREIGN FORCE AND INFLUENCE (con't).

This paper was written by John Jay.

by Alexander Hamilton

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS/PAPERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF A SPOILER THREADS IS THE GLOSSARY
THREAD.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Also, the citation thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Introduction:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

This is the reading assignment for the week beginning March 19th through March 25th (2018)

FEDERALIST No. 3
Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (con't) (John Jay) (page 36)

For those who would like a free copy:

http://federali.st/3 or

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1...

The copy of the book that I am using is the following:

by Alexander Hamilton

Check the syllabi thread for more details.

We will only be discussing one Federalist Paper a week and we will go in order.

Members can also discuss any previous Federalist paper on its specific thread which was already assigned and or introduced in previous weeks.

Please make sure to be clear which Federalist Paper you are referencing when you post and post to the specific thread assigned to that paper.

So as an example, in week one, we will be able to discuss only Federalist #1, Week Two we will be able to discuss Federalist #2 or a member can go back and make reference to Federalist #1; in Week Three members will be discussing Federalist #3; but members can also during Week 3 make reference to either Federalist #2 or # 1 at any time during that week's period.

But discussion on Federalist #4 cannot take place until Week 4 commences.

This will help us avoid spoilers for those members who are just catching up and it will help minimize confusion.

If anybody would like to kick off discussion of Federalist Paper #3 with some introductory discussion questions, comments, etc.

Please feel free to do so.

Some court cases of John Jay.

One such case of John Jay's was Chisholm versus Georgia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm...

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1...

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/ng...

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/politic...

This case had broad implications for the future 11th amendment.

Jay really did not like being on the supreme court and preferred other positions including governor of New York. He had been appointed first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by George Washington.

If folks would like to listen and read along to an audio of Federalist Paper #3 - here is the link:

http://michaelscherervoice.com/the-fe...

Publius

Readers will notice that a pseudonym was used with these essays. John Jay wrote the second and this third essay but also signed the essay with the "Publius" pseudonym.

"Publius," was used in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. Publicola had helped establish the Roman Republic and his name means "friend of the people".

Here is the wikipedia write-up on Publius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_...

We will also be using the following books in our discussions of the papers:

by Sanford Levinson

by Sanford Levinson

by Michael Meyerson

And the book we are using for discussion is:

by Alexander Hamilton

Let us start off by introducing ourselves (only if you did not introduce yourself in the Week One or Week Two thread) and telling us what you believe is the relevance of the Federalist Papers.

I want you to know that this is a discussion that I hope will be led by all of you - your comments and questions and interactions will be what keeps us going - I think this could be a very interesting undertaking.

Also feel free to cite court cases (Supreme Court) etc. which deal with topics and issues brought forth in The Federalist Papers. Or any of the topics that are in the news or there is any on going conflict which pertains to the discussion itself.

There is no need to have to cite either book we are using or any of the founding fathers who wrote these papers on these discussion threads. However if you cite an ancillary book, you must use our citation rules.

My name is Bentley - I am the Founder of the group and I will be your moderator. I am living in the Metro NYC area and I love history. I am hoping that everyone will join in and have a fun and lively discussion. I am excited about doing this now because I find that our constitution and our institutions are under great scrutiny lately for a variety of reasons. The papers seem to have as much relevance today as they did when the founders were just trying to get the Constitution ratified.

Note: Some of you have already introduced yourself so there is no need to do that again if you posted your intro in one of the previous threads for Week One or Week Two. This instruction will be repeated only for those who haven't and are posting for the first time in the discussion.

Just as an FYI:

We have set up ancillary threads for Hamilton, Jay and Madison - sort of personal threads for each of the founding fathers writing these essays.

Periodically, I will add information to these links to not clutter up the discussion threads.

Additionally I have added a great deal of information already to the Week Two thread on John Jay so I will not be reposting it again subsequently. Additionally I posted a great deal of ancillary information regarding Alexander Hamilton in the Week One thread so I will not be reposting that information again.

There is also a glossary thread where ancillary information can be posted or on any of the threads dedicated to Hamilton, Jay and Madison.

Alexander Hamilton thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

John Jay thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

James Madison thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Week One thread - Federalist One:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Week Two thread - Federalist Two:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Other Threads:

Introduction: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Also on the Main page of the History Book Club - in the video section at the top - I have added lectures and videos which may be helpful to understanding the Federalist Papers as a whole. Always check there too.

You are on the Week Three thread for Federalist Three.

Federalist Paper 3:

Essay Overview and Summary:

John Jay continues his essay from Federalist Two. He begins by stating that the general consensus among the American people is that the best government for the nation would be a national government, invested with sufficient power "for all general purposes." He states: a) he believes that the people are right and b) his greatest concern is the safety of the American people.

Jay draws from his experience of being the peace and treaty negotiator and indicates that America has already signed treaties with six nations all of which are maritime nations except Prussia and all could injure the United States. He feels that one nation would be able to maintain these relationships with these countries more easily than thirteen and in the same manner. He also points out that not one Indian War has been provoked by the national government but that several states have provoked such wars which led to serious consequences.

He cites an example which included the small state of Genoa which in 1685 offended Louis XIV and had to send numerous people to personally apologize and to accept his terms and which Jay stated - no Spain or Britain would have had to undergo such humiliation.

Here is another installment of the Hillsdale Federalist Papers videos:

"The Improved Science of Politics"
Overview

Publius argued that the “science of politics . . . has received great improvement” in his own day. These improvements include separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, judges who serve a life term during good behavior, and what he called “the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT” of government. Contrary to the practice of previous republics, Publius argued that a republic had a much greater chance of achieving success if it is spread out over a large or extended territory, rather than a small or contracted one.

Link to Video: https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/...

And Q&A:
https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/...

David Hume had an effect on the three Federalist Essayists.


David Hume, oil on canvas by Allan Ramsay, 1766; in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh

Who was he:

David Hume, (born May 7 [April 26, Old Style], 1711, Edinburgh, Scotland—died August 25, 1776, Edinburgh), Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism.

Hume conceived of philosophy as the inductive, experimental science of human nature. Taking the scientific method of the English physicist Sir Isaac Newton as his model and building on the epistemology of the English philosopher John Locke, Hume tried to describe how the mind works in acquiring what is called knowledge. He concluded that no theory of reality is possible; there can be no knowledge of anything beyond experience. Despite the enduring impact of his theory of knowledge, Hume seems to have considered himself chiefly as a moralist.

Remainder of article:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/...

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica


Title page of the first edition of the first volume of David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, London, England, 1739


David Hume, statue in Edinburgh.


Portrait of Scottish philosopher David Hume, by David Martin, 1770; in a private collection

by David Hume

The Federalist Papers and reading them was discussed on the Senate floor three days ago:

See article and video:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...

Excerpt:

“Congress is supposed to be a separate, equal branch of government,” he said.

“Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers,” Schumer said.

“One of the main purposes of Congress was to check the power of the executive branch,” he said. “Our Founding Fathers feared an overreaching executive branch, as I know my friend from Nebraska knows, because he cites these things. That responsibility doesn’t fall only on one party. It falls on all of us.”

From the course by Yale University
Moral Foundations of Politics

The Federalist Papers

https://www.coursera.org/learn/moral-...

Professor:

Ian Shapiro

Sterling Professor of Political Science and Henry R. Luce Director
The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale

Source: Yale and Coursera

Book mentioned in the lecture as having a great deal of influence as well - but came out much later in American History:

by John Rawls

Note: It is interesting that Hamilton wrote most of the essays but the professor seems to feel that Madison is the "principal author". Not sure what the professor means - possibly the author of those papers that had the greatest degree of impact - not sure. The professor is especially concerned about "factions".

He also discussed:

by Alexis de Tocqueville

I wonder if the founding fathers had this in mind:

The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked

https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...

Source: The Guardian

Also older NPR program:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hdif...

We begin: (continuation)

Federalist № 3
The Same Subject Continued
Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York:

It is not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and well-informed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes. ¶ Number One

The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive. ¶ Number 2

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively. ¶ Number 3

I like Jay's style less here than in Federalist Two. I find two failures.

In his first three paragraphs Jay is arguing emotionally rather than logically. He seems to be setting up an ideal against a straw man. It almost sounds as if her were saying, the wise reader would do well to support the proposed Constitution because to do so would support truth, justice and the American way (ok written out of historical context but I think the words express my idea). Oppsition supports violence and failure.

The rest is logically presented with supporting reasons although he seems to backslide again in the paragraph, third from the end, where he describes the Federal government as more prudent and less motivated by pride.

I think there may be strong reasons behind his emotive appeal. I am responding from fallible memory so bear with me for a few days while I research.

His assertion that the individual states were responsible for all the Indian wasr is interesting. Here I believe he is considering Georgia as an unexpressed example. I'll have to look at the case Bentley cites Chisholm v Georgia which may be pertinent. I remember from state history that the Articles gave Indian relations and treaties to the Federal government and Georgia flagrantly disregarded it's acceptance of the Articles and pursued its own negotiations with the tribes on its borders with a very harsh Indian treaty. At one point there were Federal troops in Indian territory to protect the tribes and state troops on the state side of the Oconee to protect the citizens. Federal commissioners were even arrested and imprisoned by state forces. I strongly suspect this was specifically in the context of Jay's writing of Federalist three even if he did not specifically so state it.

Jeffrey T - you make some good points. I often find that Jay writes like a person who had a lot to say in a paper but couldn't quite find the time for an outline before he sat down to write. He is a very logical writer for sure and he is quite learned. But he seems to be trying very hard to tell everyone that there is a moose on the table without offending anybody who happens to be sitting at it.

There were a bunch of Indian Wars and you are correct that this was the moose that Jay introduced. Peace for the whole and being more secure because we have your back - versus unrest and potential deadly conflict alone or separate. And he is emphasizing how squabbles seem to crop up much more easily when the number of entities with conflicting sets of goals increases. One government - less conflict versus multiple separate entities resulting in frequent squabbles.

Can you imagine even then 13 different states with 13 different borders, constitutions and sets of laws per state?

Your example was an excellent one.

Ben Shapiro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBGQq...

Source: Youtube

Note: Shapiro indicates that many of the wars with Indians were started by the states who wanted to enlarge their territories and not by the Federal Government.

Why did Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagree about representation?

Gordon Wood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UlWC...

Source: Youtube, The Choices Program

Books Mentioned in Talk:

by John Fiske (no photo)

by Charles A. Beard

by Alexander Hamilton

I think Jay would be rolling in his grave right now if he finds out what the Federal Government's foreign policy these days and that the Congress has little or no say about it in the last 50 years.

Donmar - I tend to agree. The founding fathers would not like us to become involved in any conflicts unless we were directly threatened on our coasts and land. I doubt that they would approve of the CIA or any foreign bases. They would have approved of a robust state department because they strongly approved of diplomacy. You are correct - short of declaring war or strikes - Congress is not that involved with international affairs. They have been involved with Russian sanctions, etc.

The Making of the US Constitution

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRnOA...

Gordon Wood of Brown University delivers a talk on the making of the U.S. Constitution on June 12, 2012, at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). Wood's presentation was part of "Shaping the American Republic to 1877," a teacher workshop sponsored by Humanities Texas and UTSA.

Source: Humanities Texas, Youtube

Books Mentioned in Talk:

by John Fiske (no photo)

by Charles A. Beard

by Alexander Hamilton

It turns out that Chisholm v US 1793, did not involve Indian affairs but Jay's writing sounds much like the John Jay of Federalist two and three. In reviewing the history of his time Jay asserted that after the Revolution serenity passed to the people as a whole who formed a confederation. "Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable
that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. "

Next I will look at the Shapiro video referenced in message 17.

Jeffrey T.

OK, let us get away from any confusion on the case Chisholm v. Georgia and clear this up:

Facts of the case

In 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised.

After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state. Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts.

Question

Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?

Conclusion

In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review.

Link: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/...

See the case itself:

Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...

Note: Jeffrey T - Now that I have verified - I know that I did not say that this had anything to do with the Indian Wars but listed what Jay was involved in as Supreme Court Justice. And this was mentioned as a first and major case heard by the Jay Court.

But I did see your previous post and commented about the remainder of what you had to say. The reason why this was mentioned was in relationship to Jay who wrote these next few Federalist essays.

Also note:

Rulings of the Jay Court

The Jay Court did not issue many major rulings, but Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) stands as the first important ruling of the Supreme Court.

The court held that the state of Georgia could be sued in federal court, establishing an important precedent that the states of the union do not constitute fully sovereign states.

However, the Eleventh Amendent, ratified in 1795, granted states sovereign immunity from suits in federal court by citizens of another state.

About the Jay Court:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Court

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/event/Chis...

Note 2 to Jeffrey T:

I think you were thinking of Worcester vs Georgia which ended up before the Supreme Court later - (the Marshall Court)

Here is a video on that one:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cqXo...

About:

A Georgia court convicted Samuel Worcester of settling in Cherokee Nation territory without obtaining a state license.

Worcester appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the decision in 1832. The court also laid down guiding principles on the relationship between Native American tribes, states, and the nation.

John Marshall described the Cherokee Nation as “a distinct community” over which “the laws of Georgia have no force… [except] with the assent of the Cherokees themselves…” The ruling thus accorded Native American tribes important elements of sovereignty, which have been reinforced in hundreds of cases since that time.

Yet the ruling did not protect the Cherokees and other Native American tribes from oppression. Perhaps best known to Georgians is the forced removal of Native Americans from the state on the infamous “Trail of Tears.”

This is the Worcester versus Georgia Supreme Court Case:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/... (Oyez)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede... (JUSTIA)

Source(s): Oyez, Justia, Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, State Bar of Georgia

Lobbying the Early Congress Part 4 - Professor Desan outlined the implications of the 1793 Supreme Court case Chisholm v. Georgia on lobbying and the implications on today's politics.

In the case, the Court decided that a citizen of South Carolina could sue another state, Georgia, in a federal court. She examined how the movement of the petition to the legal from the legislative process circumscribed the practice of lobbying. She also took questions from the audience.

Link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?104034-...

Lecturer: Christine Desan



Christine Desan teaches about the international monetary system, the constitutional law of money, constitutional history, political economy, and legal theory. She is the co-founder of Harvard’s Program on the Study of Capitalism, an interdisciplinary project that brings together classes, resources, research funds, and advising aimed at exploring that topic. With its co-director, Prof. Sven Beckert (History), she has taught the Program’s anchoring research seminar, the Workshop on the Political Economy of Modern Capitalism, since 2005. Desan will be a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study during the 2015-2016 academic year and at the Massachusetts Historical Society in the fall of 2016.

Desan’s research explores money as a legal and political project, one that configures the market it sets out to measure. Her approach aims to open economic orthodoxy to question, particularly insofar as it assumes money as a neutral instrument and markets as autonomous phenomena. She has recently published a book called Making Money: Coin, Currency, and the Coming of Capitalism (Oxford University Press, 2014). She is also the editor of Inside Money: Re-Theorizing Liquidity (forthcoming, University of Pennsylvania Press), and co-editor with Sven Beckert of Capitalism in America: New Histories (in progress). Her articles include "Coin Reconsidered: The Political Alchemy of Commodity Money," Theoretical Inquiries in Law 287 (January, 2010), and "Beyond Commodification: Contract and the Credit-Based World of Modern Capitalism," in Transformation of American Law II: Essays for Morton Horwitz (2010).

Desan is on the Board of the Institute for Global Law and Policy, is a faculty member of the Program on American Studies at Harvard University, and has served on the editorial board for the Law and History Review and as an advisory editor of Eighteenth Century Studies. In Brookline, MA, Desan served for 10 years on a town committee that researched and drafted legislation promoting campaign finance reform, and that supervised that reform once it was enacted.

Areas of Interest

Constitutional Law: Constitutional History
Constitutional Law: Monetary History
International Law: International Monetary Systems
Law and Economics: Comparative Institutional Design
Legal Theory
Legal Theory: Political Economy

Source: C-Span

by Christine Desan (no photo)

Here is the libertarian view: (Chisholm versus Georgia) and some other cases which may be of interest - as well as the origin of the Eleventh Amendment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkQQ8...

Note: If the site informs the public of its pespective, I let you know. Still has a great deal of good information and it is good to hear all different interpretations.

Professor Kevin Gutzman, author of James Madison and the Making of America, discusses the Federalists in the 1790s, with special attention to Chisholm v. Georgia, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Jeffersonian Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions

Source: Youtube

by Kevin R.C. Gutzman

All, join in on the conversation and discuss any aspect of Federalist 3 you would like. I will continue to go through the discussion this week but all of the discussions are always open on the essays that we have discussed thus far.

Federalist One, Two and now Three

If you have not posted on the previous threads, please post and introduce yourself briefly telling us where globally you are from (since we are a global group) and let us know what you would like to discuss about this essay.

Bentley wrote: "OK, let us get away from any confusion on the case Chisholm v. Georgia and clear this up:

...The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia."

Wait, did the 2010 Roberts court know anything about this?!?
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ;-)

Bentley wrote:

I think you were thinking of Worcester vs Georgia which ended up before the Supreme Court later - (the Marshall Court)

I'm sorry you were confused but the quote I provided came directly from the case I cited Chisolm v Georgia.

I was looking at that decision because you cited it and it was the first important case the court reviewed. It was closest in time to the writing of the Federalist Papers and I wanted to see if it did have anything directly to say about the Indian conflicts. It did not and I was not supposing that you had cited it for that reason. Jay's words about sovereignty were, however, very directly related to the powers of the Federal government which is still important today, so I quoted them.

Just to be clear, I did not believe that you claiming any such relationship existed. I only looked at the case to see if Indian affairs were involved and as I read the case became interested to see if Jay's style or thoughts had changed which I did not see either.

Jeffrey T.

Hello Jeffrey - I had actually cited it as a case when John Jay was Chief Justice (informational about Jay)

But then I was traveling for awhile and when I came back to the thread it appeared that I had missed that you had thought that the Chisholm case dealt with the Native American situation in the Federalist 3 essay - and I wanted to correct any misperceptions. It did not deal with Native Americans.

It was simply posted with background information on Jay as a founding father.

I wanted to clear everything up and let folks know that the reason for adding Chisholm did not relate to Jay's statement about Native Americans in Federalist 3.

But that there was another troubling Supreme Court case later on in our history that did deal with the state of Georgia and resulted in Andrew Jackson forcing the Native Americans out (Trail of Tears). Of course that had nothing to do with Federalist 3 - it was later in our history.

No worries. I thought you might have been thinking about the later case.

Something else I missed in your response Jeffrey T - Jay and his beliefs would not have changed - and what he or others who agreed with him in the Chisholm case would write -obviously would have expressed his same views and slants. There is a saying that a zebra does not change his stripes (smile)

I appreciate your finding that likeness. However, the Chisholm case was not about the Native Americans - but of course that case and all of his others would have expressed his same viewpoints that he was expressing in Federalist 3 (earlier). Jay was not on the Supreme Court until September 1789 being nominated by George Washington. Federalist 3 was published on November 3, 1787.

I find that people do not change their basic views once they are older that much - maybe they do when they are still formulating who they might become and we see many radicals in youth become stable law abiding citizens later on who have dramatically changed their approach to life and their beliefs. Jay however was about 45 when he wrote the essays I believe so he had already reached that point in his life where he was what he was. So his belief system would have run through the essays he wrote, the treatises he wrote as well as his later cases. You saw the similarity. I was not commenting on the quote hence the update now when I am.

I also want to add that we are maintaining a large board with many threads and I spread my time throughout all of the postings so sometimes I miss things and have to circle back but I wanted to clear up any confusion because if you were confused - somebody else might have been too.

Jerome wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK, let us get away from any confusion on the case Chisholm v. Georgia and clear this up:

...The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not..."

The Supreme court would have known about any of the cases that came before (smile).

Also Jerome - a hearty welcome - have you posted already a brief intro - just telling us where you are from globally and why the Federalist essays interested you? If not, please do so everyone can get to know you on this journey.

I posted in Federalist One

Thank you Jerome. Much appreciated.

Bentley wrote:

I find that people do not change their basic views once they are older that much - maybe they do when they are still formulating who they might become and we see many radicals in youth become stable law abiding citizens later on who have dramatically changed their approach to life and their beliefs. Jay however was about 45 when he wrote the essays I believe so he had already reached that point in his life where he was what he was.

It surprised me that you would hold that given the current state of our Presidency. I realized you could think that a single aberration but I am curious, being well over 45, what evidence you would have for the belief that onions become ossified at that early age.

On reading Federalist Three I was interested in Jay's remarks about the various state's dealings with Indians because Georgia was in a bad way at this time. Despite approving the Articles which transferred Indian affairs to the Federal government, Georgia continued to issue land titles to Indian lands in the west. Georgia still claimed its western boundary to be the Mississippi River. Between 1777 and 1796 more land grants had been issues than was available in the 24 counties that had been laid out. Then came the corrupt Yazoo Act whish issued claims for another $30 million acres as far west as the present state of Mississippi. Since this trail to the Yazoo land fraud had already been well blazed by 1787 with two prior land acts I was wondering if this has been part of the context behind Jay's remarks.

Still am interested in that subject, actually. Haven't found anything interesting though. Perhaps there hadn't been much attention focused upon what Georgia was actually doing as yet.

Jeffrey T - you are making me laugh. I think by the time you are 45 - the die is cast frankly - most of the folks that I have known have settled into their career, their personal life, their biases, their cliques, their personal political leanings, etc. It seems to come with the territory. I was thinking of my late father who was more of a Democrat when he was starting out and then around 45 became more conservative as he got older - more and more and more (lol).

You know we had a few lawyers sign up and we have not seen or heard hide nor hair of them - maybe one of them might be more familiar with Georgia law.

I will try to dig further to see what Jay was working on at the time that he wrote the essay - that particular year or the year before - which might give us a hint.

I have seen that so many times. Now I am NOT talking about how anybody would vote - folks can go either way sometimes depending upon the candidate - I am just talking about basic character traits, beliefs, biases, family and social units - they usually have taken hold by 45.

I am really not that familiar with the state of Georgia in terms of the majority of their issues but the case that I did cite which included the preacher seemed to smack of what you are describing.

Calling all legal eagles - does anybody know what was going on in Georgia - during the year or two of the essay that Jay wrote or preceding it???

I found an article in flashpoint magazine by Robert J. Miller about the American Indian situation. The fifth paragraph says:

The thirteen American colonies then adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and convened in a new Congress to manage their affairs on the national level. This Congress also had to manage Indian affairs and keep the tribes from fighting against the United States. The new Congress also sent diplomatic representatives to the tribes and promised friendship and peace, and ultimately it signed eight treaties with Indian tribes between 1781-1789, including treaties with the Iroquois Confederacy, the Cherokee Tribe, the Shawnee Tribe and numerous other tribes. However, this Congress’ power in Indian affairs was limited because the Articles of Confederation did not clearly give this Congress the exclusive power to deal with tribes. Thus, various states meddled in Indian affairs and actually caused wars between tribes and Georgia and South Carolina, for example, because the states were trying to steal Indian lands. The problems caused by states getting involved in Indian affairs led many people to call for the formation of a new and stronger United States government wherein the exclusive power over Indian affairs would be placed only in the hands of the national government and would be taken completely away from the states.

http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm

This book may be of interest, although most of it occurs a little later in history:
by Robert J. Miller

Great find Connie. The preacher case that I cited showed what Georgia was up to. But what you discovered confirmed it. Was Jay involved I wonder though in any of those treaties. That would have been one of his fortes.

I wonder about that link - if there was one.

The link to Miller's blog at Lewis and ClarK Law School (at the end of the article) didn't work for me either. The article was written in 2006. He is now at Arizona State Univ.

New blog address:
https://nativeamericanews.wordpress.c...

I see, thank you for the explanation. I think it is always important to look at who wrote an article or even book - and what their perspective was or what their biases are. Whenever I can ascertain where they are coming from - I alert the membership.

I have found that every historian or anybody for that matter is writing to prove something and they include and even omit those things that do not add credibility to their hypothesis - "even" if they are trying to be an honest broker. Their beliefs somehow creep in even if it is ever so slightly.

Of course, in this case - Miller is focused on Native American studies which is a problem that the US had all over the continental United States. Part of what Andrew Jackson ordered pushed the Indians of Georgia even further Westward on the Trail of Tears which makes him a despised president even to this very day among the Native American people.

April 30, 1789: First Inaugural Address - President George Washington

Transcript:

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualification, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.

These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.

It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them.

Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed.

And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

About this speech
April 30, 1789

Source: Miller Center

Washington calls on Congress to avoid local and party partisanship and encourages the adoption of a Bill of Rights, without specifically calling them by name.

The first President demonstrates his reluctance to accept the post, rejects any salary for the execution of his duties, and devotes a considerable part of the speech to his religious beliefs.

April 30, 1789: First Inaugural Address - President George Washington

Transcript:

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualification, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.

These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.

It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them.

Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed.

And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

About this speech
April 30, 1789

Source: Miller Center

Washington calls on Congress to avoid local and party partisanship and encourages the adoption of a Bill of Rights, without specifically calling them by name.

The first President demonstrates his reluctance to accept the post, rejects any salary for the execution of his duties, and devotes a considerable part of the speech to his religious beliefs.

Hi All - so I am late and behind and if I failed to introduce myself at the beginning I am a retired guy living in New York City - ex industrial background mostly steel - interested in history [ philosophy - reader, hiker, environmental activist.
And I am behind and have not looked at many of the references posted by Bentley and others (is Bentley a real person or does he have a world with 48 or 72 hour days to do what he does?)

So the third paper and Jay - so Indians aside I think the Jay was reasoning that all should be realistic - in my mind - we had a world where our kind of democracy was a "one of a / first of a kind". the colonists had come to the Confederation under their ling established colonial governments and until the Constitution really functioned with their colonies/ now states - being their life long government except for the Brits who we fought off.
So why would they not want/need to understand the reasoning of the need to surrender part of their independence to maintain the rest of it and their security?
But I will try to see more and catch up but whether Jay used the Indians or another scenario to make his point I see it and think it was probably well made to a man of the time.
But I will try to watch or read one attachment a day as I can and try to catch up a bit.

Oh to be 45 again.... so I think that we are generally formed to what we are by that age - in America and Western Europe and other places. With all the insulations we have.
But think of the Iraqi or Syrian fleeing for their lives to another culture where they do not have much power etc and I think we will see more flexibility to change - thought doubts and anger and resentment might continue - but real change can come.
So I sort of agree with Bentley but not all the time.

a final comment - I had to look back at the Paper to insert this - in the first paragraph "like the Americans - intelligent and well informed". - oh were that the case again today............

Bentley is a real person (lol) - unfortunately Bentley wishes there were a 100 hours in their day. Sometimes there are an abundance of obligations elsewhere and travel which takes Bentley away from the History Book Club they love.

I think that the Indians and foreign powers were always preying on the minds of the founding fathers.

And Vincent you do not have to agree with me - as a moderator we just post a view and we hope to enlist from that post a variety of beliefs and views for discussion so your ideas and opinions are very much welcome.

I think what seems to strike me when reading these essays is how much our country has changed - our ideals are virtually the same for our country in terms of our founding documents - the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence. But there are so many factions which our founding fathers would frown on. The country has grown, the demographics of the country is different, global society has changed, the world has become much smaller and what happens globally affects all of us. How can we hold dear those fundamental truths that our country was build upon when we have leaders who seem to tear down and instill fear versus unity and a common ground? And I am NOT discussing any one individual either or being political in any way. Where is the discussion of the common good and the insistence that the country is more important than party? And the founding fathers were not too keen on the political parties either - they seemed to have a lot of common sense.

Have we lost along the way - the sense of dignity and goodwill towards our fellow Americans?

Excellent Article:

‘Federalist’ Principles of Governing Are Dead – Consider the Impasse Over ‘The Wall’
Bob Barr |Posted: Jan 02, 2019 12:01 AM



Two hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.”

Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’”

Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays.

Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting.

In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch. This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body.

By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to the People of the entire country; not to the Legislative Branch.

Conversely, and in another important principle incorporated into the Constitution, Members of the Legislative Branch (the two Houses of Congress) neither answer to nor are to be controlled by the President. Rather, each Member of Congress (whether Representative or Senator) is to reflect and be answerable to the constituents of his or her district or state; not to the President.

While those interests may from time to time coincide, U.S. Representatives and Senators are not serving in that august institution merely to do a president’s bidding.

So, what has changed (other than a profound ignorance of the principles undergirding our constitutional form of government)? Why do Republican Members of Congress by and large consider it their bounden duty to use their powers and responsibilities to do the bidding of a president simply because the person occupying that office is of the same political party as are they? Similarly, why do Democrats operate in the same mode when the White House is occupied by a person with a “D” after their name?

In a word, what has turned our political structure on its head, is the one thing our Founding Fathers disdained and warned us about – party politics. Especially in the closed, two-party system that has constrained politics in America for more than a century and a half, the primary allegiance deemed important to the vast majority of Representatives and Senators now serving, is to the President who happens to be of their same political party. If the president is a Republican, the congressional leaders of that party consider it their obligation to employ their powers to enact his agenda; and failure to toe that line is considered cause for punishment. The Democrats operate in just the same manner.

Thus have the lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches become muddled, if not largely erased; and most Members of Congress now rarely assert a voice or an agenda independent from that of the president. Members not of the president’s party consider it their primary responsibility to oppose the Administration’s agenda; those who share the president’s political affiliation view it as their almost sacred responsibility to do whatever they can to support the agenda of “their” president.

More:
https://townhall.com/columnists/bobba...

Source: Townhall

I agree with this I really do - what do the others of you think about this? Keep the filibuster and stop the nuclear option - we need to pass bills that reflect the populace of America and not a limited view - bipartisanship is important - and of course reflection and putting the country first over a political party.

Conservatives Need to Love the Filibuster Again
It matters. It really does.
by CHARLES SYKES FEBRUARY 4, 2019 4:01 AM


Huey Long, after his record-breaking filibuster in 1935

Link: https://thebulwark.com/conservatives-...

Source: The Bulwark

A Time to Look Back as We Move Forward. The Federalist Papers Number Three by Publius. Introduction by John Hamilton

Link: http://thepinetree.net/new/?p=74656

Source: The Pine Tree Net

I have checked this thread and I think we need to make sure that we have completely discussed this Federalist 3. I think we discussed a great deal but did not cover it in its entirety.

Federalist № 3
The Same Subject Continued
Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York:

It is not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and well-informed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes. ¶1

The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive. ¶2

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively. ¶3

At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as from dangers of the like kind arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against hostilities from abroad. ¶4

The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or pretended, which provoke or invite them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many just causes of war are likely to be given by united America as by disunited America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations. ¶5

The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to. ¶6

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies. ¶7

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. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us. ¶8

Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,—whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended. ¶9

Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning. ¶10

Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others. ¶11

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. ¶12

As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter. ¶13

Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants. ¶14

The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested. ¶15

But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them. ¶16

Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power. ¶17

In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to France, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other powerful nation? ¶18

Publius. [John Jay]

I will cross reference in what message boxes we discussed certain paragraphs and I will finish up on the rest to make sure we covered this well.