The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 9.

This paper is titled THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION.

This paper was written by Alexander Hamilton.

by Alexander Hamilton

This is the reading assignment for this week (starting April 30th):

FEDERALIST No. 9

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
December 14 - December 20 (page 66)

(Alexander Hamilton)

http://federali.st/9

Remember each week's assignment may take you 10 minutes tops. And each paper is about 2 pages in length; so it is easy to catch up at your leisure. Reading these papers really helps put our government in perspective (US).

Also, we are able to discuss the current assignment or any of the previous week's assignments so you can always catch up, ask questions and/or participate and comment at any time.

Federalist 9 will open April 30th.

Federalist 9:

Hamilton begins this essay by extolling the virtues of a strong and secure union compared to the state that ancient Greece and Italy found themselves in. In fact, Hamilton is insinuating that without a strong centralized government the states may even face the same fate as these city states...tyranny and anarchy.

A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy

Source: Federalist 9

This next paragraph was a mouthful:

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

First, Alexander Hamilton claims that these governments have disorders.
so he is basically claiming that these states have no order or regular arrangements of governmental stability.

The basic argument that Hamilton is making and which is "a major aspect of Federalist No. 9 is Hamilton's response to the common Anti-Federalist argument based on the theories of Montesquieu, who wrote famously in his The Spirit of the Laws that "it is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist."

The Anti-Federalist took his arguments to mean that the federal Union was bound to fail.

Hamilton responded that if Montesquieu were taken literally, then since he was thinking of dimensions far smaller even than those of the states, the Americans would have to split themselves into "an infinity of little, jealous, clashing tumultuous commonwealths."

More seriously, Hamilton contends that the confederated federal system described in the proposed Constitution would not suffer as Montesquieu predicted because of its confederated, rather than centralized, design.

Do you buy Hamilton's arguments which I think are quite good?

Source: Wikipedia. Federalist Papers

Gradesaver gave this interpretation of Hamilton's arguments in terms of his interpretation of Montesquieu:

Hamilton concludes that the utility of a confederacy is to suppress faction, to guard the internal tranquility of States, and to increase their external force and security.

For Hamilton, a strong government would be able to suppress rebellions in other parts of the country (like Shay's Rebellion) because they would not have the same ties to the region, an advantage of a larger republic.

He believes that people who use Montesquieu's arguments against the size of a nation not being suitable for a republic are false and using the philosopher's words out of context.

To try and persuade people that they are wrong, Hamilton quotes the philosopher at length.

The majority of Montesquieu's comments that Hamilton uses concern the value of the size of a republic in avoiding internal corruption, domestic factions, and insurrections, not the impossibility of liberty or a republic existing in a large republic."

The Spirit of Laws A Compendium of the First English Edition

This partial paragraph in Federalist No. 9 summarizes the vision of the American government that is almost exactly realized:

"The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times."

I would argue that Congress has abrogated its responsibility to check and balance the power of the Executive (not only recently, but since the Reagan era), and that in its failure to provide President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing and thereby unfairly blocking the power of the executive to nominate, altered the balance of the Judicial branch and its ability to rein in the current Executive.

Jerome wrote: "This partial paragraph in Federalist No. 9 summarizes the vision of the American government that is almost exactly realized:

"The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the intro..."


Congress abrogating it responsibility is a thought in my mind more and more as the current presidency goes on.

I started to read, a book long on my bookshelf, America's Constitution: A Biography which as I really felt a need to better understand the structure and powers of the president and other branches of government - but have been delayed by other read obligations (includes participation in the HBC opportunities) and a health problem now coming under control (I hope) but I do agree that our congress could have, and to my mind should have, placed some limits on our new president.

I am more disappointed at the silence of so many who in my view should have stood up and been counted together with McCain and a few others. I am curious how some of the newer members of congress understand America.

I bought the book after hearing the author, a Yale professor, Akhil Reed Amar participate in a panel at the New York Historical Society.

Maybe it is something to consider for the HBC - then I would likely finish it before Trump is through - (maybe in November from total power)

Akhil Reed Amar

I agree Vincent - all we hear are the sounds of silence from Congress.

What Alexander Hamilton could teach Trump and May
By Laura Beers
Updated 5:28 PM ET, Tue January 29, 2019



CNN)Last week, I took my 7-year-old to see "Hamilton: An American Musical" in London.

We both know the soundtrack nearly by heart, but watching the play live less than a mile from the Palace of Westminster threw the revolutionary success story into new relief.

Several members of the audience laughingly groaned when King George III lamented that fighting with France and Spain was making him blue.

But the comparison that stood out most pointedly to me was not between the politically isolated King George and the current Prime Minister, but between Theresa May and Alexander Hamilton.

Remainder of article:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/opinio...

Source: CNN

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

The moderator feels that more time and explanation is needed to satisfactorily cover this paper so we will continue to update and review this one.