The Federalist Papers

[Tim Elston]

I'm going to share quotes from The Federalist Papers, by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (Bantam 2003), in this thread.

"Were not there...inducements to moderation, nothing could be more illjudged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterized political parties" --No. 1, Alexander Hamilton.

[Mike Vande]

a quote from a different source;

Revelation 3:15&16 (New International Version)
15 - I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 - So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

"Neither hot nor cold"... that's moderate, isn't it?

[Tim Elston]

"Neither hot nor cold"... that's moderate, isn't it?

I would think that a hot Christian would want to give due diligence to "let your moderation be known unto all men," wouldn't you? Both Paul and Brother Hamilton seemed to have in mind a temperate spirit. I need to work on that one; how about you, gentle one?

My aim in these posts is to provide quotes from The Federalist Papers that give evidence of how the Founding Fathers themselves viewed the Constitution, as an antidote to the projection of our beliefs onto them. If our positions find them unrighteously moderate or not "conservative" enough for our Kansan, Alabaman, or Alaskan tastes, then aren't we special. The point is to let the most exhaustive, authoritative glimpse into their own thoughts speak to us about how they concieved of the Constitution. After all, we conservatives are so indignant about revisionist history, aren't we? I'm sure, Mike, that you will welcome the truth, knowing your profound sense of barely biased integrity.

You'll be disappointed to know, I'm sure, that I'm writing a school paper and have to lower my extracurricular reading on the priority list. But fret not, Grasshopper, I shall get back to this before you can snatch a pebble from my hand.

[dolfan]

"Were not there...inducements to moderation, nothing could be more illjudged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterized political parties" --No. 1, Alexander Hamilton.


I have a book at home with Geo. Washington's farewell speech where he said:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Washington and Hamilton and Madison were compatriots. In fact, when Washington finished his first term, he had them work with him on a draft of the farewell address before deciding to seek a second term. Some of what we read in the farewell address was actually written prior to the end of Washington's first term.

I find it interesting to read the absolute langauge Washington used to encourage loyalty to the constituted government. For example, he wrote, "It is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." [Emphasis mine.]

Then, we juxtapose Jefferson's view: "Manfully maintain our good old principle of cherishing and fortifying the rights and authorities of the people in opposition to those who fear them, who wish to take all power from them and to transfer all to Washington." --Thomas Jefferson, 1826

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787.

"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792.

"Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. [I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.]" -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1787.

We can't lump all of the Founders together. They disputed sharply as any other generation of leaders. Given the two views, however, I prefer the Jeffersonian one to Hamilton's, but the beauty of our nation has been what their tension produced.

[Tim Elston]

We can't lump all of the Founders together. They disputed sharply as any other generation of leaders. Given the two views, however, I prefer the Jeffersonian one to Hamilton's, but the beauty of our nation has been what their tension produced.

The quotes from Jefferson show his attitude toward rebellion and resistance, not his conception of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers reveal the rationales for the Constitution through the mind of its primary author, James Madison, and two other of the founding fathers. Madison later changed his mind about concepts he wrote in the Federalist, but since the authors wrote their contributions to this work immediately prior to the Constitutional Convention, and as propaganda for it, there is no doubt that they represent the prevailing rationale for the Constitution as accepted by the Convention. If anything like a reconstructionist interpretation is possible, preponderant weight must be granted the Federalist.

[Tim Elston]

Given the two views, however, I prefer the Jeffersonian one to Hamilton's, but the beauty of our nation has been what their tension produced.

In my rush this morning, I think I missed your point, Tim. You were contrasting Hamilton's statement about moderation with Jefferson's statements about periodic revolt. I'd be willing to bet that Jefferson wouldn't have liked revolt while he was President, and Hamilton was so hot-headed that he got killed in a dual that he provoked.

I agree with both men. What does Ecclesiastes 3 say? To everything there is a season. I think it's the season for constitutional reform. But I want to know whether my vision of reform is going back to the founders or projecting something onto them. Either way is fine with me, so long as the pillaging stops, but I want to be aware of history while I'm making it. No more of this Dark Ages and Falling Away and Arise, Shine nonsense, only to make everything worse.

[dolfan]

Given the two views, however, I prefer the Jeffersonian one to Hamilton's, but the beauty of our nation has been what their tension produced.

In my rush this morning, I think I missed your point, Tim. You were contrasting Hamilton's statement about moderation with Jefferson's statements about periodic revolt. I'd be willing to bet that Jefferson wouldn't have liked revolt while he was President, and Hamilton was so hot-headed that he got killed in a dual that he provoked.

I agree with both men. What does Ecclesiastes 3 say? To everything there is a season. I think it's the season for constitutional reform. But I want to know whether my vision of reform is going back to the founders or projecting something onto them. Either way is fine with me, so long as the pillaging stops, but I want to be aware of history while I'm making it. No more of this Dark Ages and Falling Away and Arise, Shine nonsense, only to make everything worse.

Well, I agree with both of them, too. We probably wouldn't take their statements as they intended them, and we'd probably disagree over which one of us is most faithful to their intent. But, I think you've hit the nail on the head that it's time for reform. I don't suppose, personally, that it could happen short of revolt or rebellion or revolution or whatever name a bloodbath goes by. The pillaging needs to stop, period. It's time to put people in charge of themselves again, to allow the natural inclinations of industry to lead people to the enjoyment of their work without having to forfeit portions of their fruit to government.

[Tim Elston]

The pillaging needs to stop, period. It's time to put people in charge of themselves again, to allow the natural inclinations of industry to lead people to the enjoyment of their work without having to forfeit portions of their fruit to government.

This is where our difference of emphasis comes to bear. I think that it is "the natural inclinations of industry" that lead to people "having to foreit portions of their fruit." I believe that the people, through government, must protect themselves against the pillaging of monopolistic exploitation. They must prevent the takeover of government by big money so that government functions on their behalf, to protect them against monopolistic power.

This is how I would rework what you said: It is time to put the people in charge of government again, to allow the public inclinations of government to lead people to the enjoyment of their work without having to forfeit portions of their fruit to monopolistic power.

I still think there is an important difference between our respective positions. I will not be satisfied with leaving monopolistic exploitation unchecked by the governmental power of the people.

[dolfan]

The pillaging needs to stop, period. It's time to put people in charge of themselves again, to allow the natural inclinations of industry to lead people to the enjoyment of their work without having to forfeit portions of their fruit to government.

This is where our difference of emphasis comes to bear. I think that it is "the natural inclinations of industry" that lead to people "having to foreit portions of their fruit." I believe that the people, through government, must protect themselves against the pillaging of monopolistic exploitation. They must prevent the takeover of government by big money so that government functions on their behalf, to protect them against monopolistic power.

This is how I would rework what you said: It is time to put the people in charge of government again, to allow the public inclinations of government to lead people to the enjoyment of their work without having to forfeit portions of their fruit to monopolistic power.

I still think there is an important difference between our respective positions. I will not be satisfied with leaving monopolistic exploitation unchecked by the governmental power of the people.

Okay, I wouldn't be satisfied with it, either. It sounds nasty. Seriously, you've identified one strand of the DNA of big government, I think. If you mean by "monopolistic exploitation" the power of, for example, banks over the value of money. At least, from what you've said before, that's what I'm getting. Are there other examples?

[Tim Elston]

If you mean by "monopolistic exploitation" the power of, for example, banks over the value of money. At least, from what you've said before, that's what I'm getting. Are there other examples?

Of course. All those companies that have deep hooks in Congress and the rotating White House staff. Favored defense contractors come particularly to mind, like SAIC. Union conglomerates. Real estate corporations that have paid Congress to prevent price competitors in the market. The health care industry giants who use Congress's pen to prevent supply chain competition for pharmeceuticals. The list could go on and on and on and on.

Your suggested reforms could impede these monopolies that sabotage the market. No lobbyists. No revolving doors between industry and government. Some form of agile, independent ethics reform and enforcement, so that Congress is not policing itself. Etc., etc., etc.

[curiouspk]

"The Judiciary on the contrary has no influence over the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution." No. 78, Alexander Hamilton