The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 5.

This paper is titled CONCERNING DANGERS FROM FOREIGN FORCE AND INFLUENCE (cont'd).

This paper was written by John Jay.

by Alexander Hamilton

FEDERALIST PAPER 5 (CONT'D)

It is MHO that Jay was correct that if the states were left to their own devices; we would have become 50 separate and small countries with no great affinity for each other and there would have been a host of quarrels and disputes.

I think he is correct in his argument that "we would be formidable only to each other"

Here is the excerpt:

They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., formidable only to each other.

What kind of future would we have had as 50 independent country-states?

He also sees that each region and it is odd that he mentions both a Northern confederacy and a Southern one (almost a premonition)..may in fact establish alliances and treaties based upon their own commercial needs which would be conflicting to the other or even in fact be with countries who are at war with each other. Jay was quite astute.

He also is very persuasive when he brings in the Roman analogy of how the Romans changed the governments, locations and peoples that they were allegedly protecting.

Here is the excerpt:

Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves.

And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect.

Here is a blog by someone who was on the same quest:

http://we-are-publius.blogspot.com/20...

This is Federalist #5 week:

FEDERALIST No. 5 :

Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (con't) (John Jay)

November 16 - November 22 (page 44)

http://federali.st/5

In Federalist 5, Jay begins with a statement from Queen Anne:

Queen Anne, in her letter of the 1st July, 1706, to the Scotch Parliament, makes some observations on the importance of the union then forming between England and Scotland, which merit our attention.

I shall present the public with one or two extracts from it:

An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interest, will be enabled to resist all its enemies.

We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion, being the only effectual way to secure our present and future happiness, and disappoint the designs of our and your enemies, who will doubtless, on this occasion, use their utmost endeavors to prevent or delay this union.

Was this an effective example for the American people - using an example from their former and more recent adversary?

In the next paragraph of Federalist Paper 5, Jay paraphrases the most important topics in his preceding paper (number 4):

It was remarked in the preceding paper, that weakness and divisions at home would invite dangers from abroad; and that nothing would tend more to secure us from them than union, strength, and good government within ourselves. This subject is copious and cannot easily be exhausted.

SECURITY is a key argument from Jay - SECURITY is secured with UNION, STRENGTH and GOOD GOVERNMENT within ourselves.

If you were a colonist would the security issue resonate with you. Why and/or why not? Would the three arguments made by Jay be reason enough to ratify the Constitution?

Jay makes an interesting comparison to Great Britain and how they were quarreling with their border countries. In fact, Jay senses that the the colonies would end up just like GB quarreling and fighting with each other if we were not united as one.

Does that argument seem reasonable?

Here is the excerpt:

The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them.

Although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another.

Notwithstanding their true interest with respect to the continental nations was really the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their mutual jealousies were perpetually kept inflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome than they were useful and assisting to each other.

Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen?

Would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being joined in affection and free from all apprehension of different interests, envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits.

Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.

I also thought it was curious about how Jay felt the GB had "paid the price".

Any comments so far on Federalist Paper #5?

I was curious to find out more about John Jay and his feeling towards Britain and was surprised to find a book which gave quite an account of a breakdown that Jay and Hamilton had with Thomas Jefferson. Please read pages 29 and 30 of the following book that google previewed;

Promised land, crusader state: the American encounter with the world since 1776 By Walter A. McDougall

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gr6a...

It seems that Jefferson got his head turned by the French during his stay overseas. I almost think he became hysterical defending them. The crowds became so incensed by what Jefferson was saying that when Jay came home with the treaty from Great Britain..they burned his effigy. What a tempest this country must have been during those times. These pages are worth reading.

I was shocked to see this on goodreads; but here are the links.

Walter A. McDougall

This appears to be a very interesting article on Jay and the fact that he was urged by Washington himself to be the plenipotentiary to Britain to help avoid war.

This looks like a fascinating article and would like to find out what else it states:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2713961

This is a wonderful speech by Remini which explains a lot about the founding of America, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the on-going debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Strange as it might seem...Washington rather liked the idea of being called: His High Mightiness and Jay was considered a moderate. Madison oddly enough was considered by Remini to be a genius; maybe he was an unassuming genius...though he and Hamilton were considered quite brilliant.

Ordinary Heroes by Robert Remini:

http://www.neh.gov/wtp/heroes/reminil...

The following, I believe, is the book that Remini was working on at the time.

by Robert Remini (no photo)

This was a pretty good synopsis of the period:

http://www.sagehistory.net/newrepubli...

FEDERALIST PAPER 5 (CONT'D)

The Southern colonies must have particularly liked this paragraph by Jay:

The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable that the most Northern of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very distant, be unquestionably more formidable than any of the others.

No sooner would this become evident than the northern hive would excite the same ideas and sensations in the more southern parts of America which it formerly did in the southern parts of Europe.

Nor does it appear to be a rash conjecture that its young swarms might often be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbors.

And what was the honey that Jay was referring to that was going to be gathered by the young Northerners? Hmm.

FEDERALIST PAPER 5 (CONT'D)

It is MHO that Jay was correct that if the states were left to their own devices; we would have become 50 separate and small countries with no great affinity for each other and there would have been a host of quarrels and disputes.

I think he is correct in his argument that "we would be formidable only to each other"

Here is the excerpt:

They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., formidable only to each other.

What kind of future would we have had as 50 independent country-states?

He also sees that each region and it is odd that he mentions both a Northern confederacy and a Southern one (almost a premonition)..may in fact establish alliances and treaties based upon their own commercial needs which would be conflicting to the other or even in fact be with countries who are at war with each other. Jay was quite astute.

He also is very persuasive when he brings in the Roman analogy of how the Romans changed the governments, locations and peoples that they were allegedly protecting.

Here is the excerpt:

Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves.

And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect.

The basic theme of Federalist 5 was:

In this paper, Jay argues that the American people can learn a lot from the troubles Great Britain had when it was divided up into individual states.

"When divided, envy and jealousy ran rampant. Try as you might to make each nation-state equal, eventually one will begin to grow more powerful than the others (assumed by Jay to be the north), they in turn will grow jealous and distrustful of each other and they might just want to take advantage of the South or its land etc.

Alliances with different nations may be forged by different states, tearing America apart at the seams.

A single nation would be 'joined in affection and free from all apprehension of different interests' and as such a much more formidable nation.

I think Jay is referring to the revolution and the northern states were busy little bees in inciting differences and these differences would cause envy, etc. divisions.

Jay felt that weakness and divisions at home [will] invite dangers from abroad; and that nothing [will] tend more to secure us from them than union, strength, and good government within ourselves.

He was trying to point out the dangers of foreign influence and how envy or jealousy among the states (let us say that the south became jealous of the north; this would cause enmity and threats made internally against each other with the risk of foreign entities trying to get involved for their own gain as they did in the Revolution creating havoc at home and between North and South.

Jay next dealt with dangers that "almost certainly" would arise if the union were split into separate confederacies, each a sovereign nation having its own commercial and other treaties with foreign powers, which would lead to rivalries and conflicts of interest.

Jay made a good point here in saying that "the foreign nation with whom the Southern confederacy might be at war, would be the one, with whom the Northern confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship."

Here Jay anticipated what more or less happened in the War of 1812, when the interests of the West and the South precipitated a war much to the disadvantage of New England."


Sources: Cliff Notes, Grade Saver, Wikipedia, The Federalist Papers, and other sources already cited on this thread; like We are Publius.

The only other thing you have to also remember is about John Jay's background. And then everything makes perfect sense.

Hive - Boston

The North - New England, New York but probably in terms of the reference about hive - Boston.

The South - the South - here in American

Southern parts of Europe - Spain (maybe France too) but definitely Spain.

Why Spain?

John Jay was many things, he was the President of the Continental Congress (1778 - 1779), one of the founding fathers, a foreign diplomat, and he (Jay) was a minister or what we call ambassadors these days to Spain and France, he acted like a Secretary of State in helping to devise United States foreign policy, and he was able to secure favorable peace terms from the United Kingdom (with Jay's Treaty of 1794) and the First French Republic. So Jay knew his European counterparts very well and what they have been up to during the Revolutionary War. He was warning Americans about old times and not to become too complacent because of the divisions that these foreign entities could create and the havoc that could be created in their wake.

They used to call him the United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs but then when the Constitution was ratified; the title became Secretary of State and Jefferson assumed that role.

Prior to writing some of the Federalist Papers around 1788, he had served in all of those capacities but was Minister to Spain in 1779.

The following is from Wikipedia but shows what troubles Jay had to go through in order to succeed in this role with a young country that none of these countries really respected at that point and still probably wanted to take advantage of.

The following from Wikipedia:

As a diplomat

On September 27, 1779, Jay resigned his office as President of the Continental Congress and was appointed Minister to Spain. In Spain, he was assigned to get financial aid, commercial treaties and recognition of American independence.

The royal court of Spain refused to officially receive Jay as the Minister of the United States, as it refused to recognize American Independence until 1783, fearing that such recognition could spark revolution in their own colonies.

Jay, however, convinced Spain to loan $170,000 to the US government. He departed Spain on May 20, 1782.

On June 23, 1782, Jay reached Paris, where negotiations to end the American Revolutionary War would take place.

Benjamin Franklin was the most experienced diplomat of the group, and thus Jay wished to lodge near him, in order to learn from him.

The United States agreed to negotiate with Britain separately, then with France.

In July 1782, the Earl of Shelburne offered the Americans independence, but Jay rejected the offer on the grounds that it did not recognize American independence during the negotiations; Jay's dissent halted negotiations until the fall.

The final treaty dictated that the United States would have Newfoundland fishing rights, Britain would acknowledge the United States as independent and would withdraw its troops in exchange for the United States ending the seizure of Loyalist property and honoring private debts.

The treaty granted the United States independence, but left many border regions in dispute, and many of its provisions were not enforced.

Jay served as the second Secretary of Foreign Affairs from 1784–1789, when in September, Congress passed a law giving certain additional domestic responsibilities to the new Department and changing its name to the Department of State.

Jay served as acting Secretary of State until March 22, 1790. Jay sought to establish a strong and durable American foreign policy: to seek the recognition of the young independent nation by powerful and established foreign European powers; to establish a stable American currency and credit supported at first by financial loans from European banks; to pay back America's creditors and to quickly pay off the country's heavy War-debt; to secure the infant nation's territorial boundaries under the most-advantageous terms possible and against possible incursions by the Indians, Spanish, the French and the English; to solve regional difficulties among the colonies themselves; to secure Newfoundland fishing rights; to establish a robust maritime trade for American goods with new economic trading partners; to protect American trading vessels against piracy; to preserve America's reputation at home and abroad; and to hold the country together politically under the fledgling Articles of Confederation.

Jay believed his responsibility was not matched by a commensurate level of authority, so he joined Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in advocating for a stronger government than the one dictated by the Articles of Confederation.

He argued in his Address to the People of the State of New-York, on the Subject of the Federal Constitution that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and ineffective a form of government.

He contended that:
The Congress under the Articles of Confederation may make war, but are not empowered to raise men or money to carry it on—they may make peace, but without power to see the terms of it observed—they may form alliances, but without ability to comply with the stipulations on their part—they may enter into treaties of commerce, but without power to [e]nforce them at home or abroad...—In short, they may consult, and deliberate, and recommend, and make requisitions, and they who please may regard them.

To understand any of the Federalist Papers that Jay wrote; you really have to focus on Jay and what he went through with these foreign entities in terms of negotiating recognition and rights for our new country. Once you understand that; then you will understand every paper that Jay ever wrote; they all deal with foreign influence, entanglements and beware of both. And how powerful these foreign forces could be and how they could wreak havoc for the young country. We owe a lot to Jay.

Please disregard my previous message. I didn't hit the update button on the open tab in my browser.

No problem whatsoever - it has been a busy week with the holiday.

I would like to thank Connie for replying to my messages regarding the Articles of Confederation and Indian relations in her message 18 for Federalist No. 4. She cited an interesting, detailed Sparknotes analysis of section IX of the Articles which said in part that Congressional authority over Indian affairs was limited by the following conditions: "as long as they are not residents of any of the states and that Congress does not Infringe on the states' rights ..." And that is a possible interpretation of the specific wording in the Articles which reads that Congress shall have the power of:

regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated ...

Yet as the Sparknotes article goes on to elucidate the western lands Georgia, for example, claimed were based upon a pre-war English charter that may have been considered invalidated by the Declaration of Independence. Further, the lands west of the present boundary had never been surveyed and the resident Indians had never sold or yielded that territory by treaty. Within the intent of the wording of the Articles of Confederation, were those Indians subject to the legislative right of the state of Georgia? Rhetorical question we probably cannot answer.

Georgia had no effective control over the territory it claimed. England, France and Spain were all active in the territory during the Revolution and Upper Creek Indians actively supported the British during the war. If we reference Alexander McGillivary in Wiki:

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

we see him negotiating a complex treaty with Spain in 1783 and get a glance at the fighting that was taking place throughout the southern back country. These were conditions that the writhers of the Articles could not have foreseen, were international not local in character, and involved more than one state. Even Jay may not have know the details since he only referred to them in a broad, general way. They certainly seem from here as though they supported the need for a stronger, national government, so much so that it seems odd Jay did not stress Indian affairs more strongly.

I’m enjoying this:)

Week Six is up and ready to go folks.

Doreen I am glad that you are enjoying this. Post your thoughts as you read the text too. Love to hear your ideas.

Folks just jump in and discuss your ideas - do not be shy.

Jeffrey - very nice post but I disagree on one thing - I think that Jay would have known the details - but maybe not. I think that folks were very involved with communicating back then and took great interest in all affairs and Jay was a detailed sort of guy. I think that he was not trying to turn anybody off by hammering any point home - his goal and the goal of Hamilton and Madison were to be as inclusive as possible and make the Constitution appear to be the solution rather than the problem that the Anti Federalists were selling. Not that they had a better idea.

Please also remember that all of the moderators are volunteers and we do our best to keep things going - we are not goodreads employees (smile). So some things may not be done as quickly as you might like sometimes. But we get there.

Also there are about 120 of you signed up for The Federalist Papers and we do not want to be lonely here - this discussion is for you and for you to post your ideas and discuss the connections that "you" see. It is not important just to read what others have posted. You learn and experience more enjoyment by interacting with each other.

You will notice that I give you time to react to the essay each week first before I jump in. I want all of you to read the piece on your own and just start posting your thoughts. You can ask questions and share ideas.

Sorry that I have been lax in posting but life has a habit of getting in the way. I have kept up on the reading though and credit this discussion group for it.

I am very glad Tom and Federalist 6 is quite timely and meaty.

I’m still catching up on the reading but so glad for this group. Such a timely topic

It certainly is Gloria and where are you located? I am glad that you are reading and discussing these essays with us.

Plenty of time to catch up. And we will be going back and forth between all of them as we see connections.

I’m in Portland on the west coast.

Very good - an Oregonian. Welcome.

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.

Bentley wrote: "In the next paragraph of Federalist Paper 5, Jay paraphrases the most important topics in his preceding paper (number 4):

It was remarked in the preceding paper, that weakness and divisions at hom..."


Hi all

Late but if I comment on this article it makes sense to start with this Bentley question about if "security" would resonate with the colonists/citizens.

So I think if we realize that they had seen the Indian Wars, the French- Indians war - the Revolution that they certainly were much more aware of daily security issues than we Americans are today.

Jay points out well that there could/would have been evolution to individual states making individual different deals with other states and other countries and without the strength of the group could they/ would they stand?

I also note that the notion of 50 separate and small countries (msg. 12) is a non starter - without the United States and the mechanism to add states I would believe there would have been several large countries, or territories belonging to other countries, formed of the region west of the first 13 states -

In the 18th century the people had to adapt, I think, to the responsibility and right to make "national" political decisions and I think that these Federalist Papers are trying to open the minds of the people to see the options and obligations. This is certainly unique to have pushed away a great power and had to power move to the people.
The Revolution was in response to unacceptable acts by the Brits but did not lay a groundwork for managing a country which is what the Constitution is doing.

Very good comments Vincent. I was thinking about Puerto Rico this week as it is back in the news regarding the devastation and death toll after the hurricane. And I thought that the poor response that it endured was a shame considering that it was one of our territories. And it voted that it wanted to become a state but that has largely been ignored too by our Congress. It would appear that America does not want to incur any additional states or responsibilities. But we already have one with PR being a territory and it does not appear that we honored that commitment very well. I wonder what our founding fathers and Hamilton would think about how we treated Puerto Rico wanting to become a state and during the aftermath of the hurricane. Are we managing our country effectively now and our territories? I wonder what Hamilton and Madison would say. It would seem that Puerto Rico's location would be advantageous from a security viewpoint too. Interesting the lack of interest and response.

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

We will review this Federalist paper to make sure that we have completed its review.