Special to the Mirror by Paul Plante
To the People of the State of Virginia:
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America.
So says Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs and the author of “ Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security†published in May 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press, in a Marketwatch article entitled “Opinion: Why a new U.S. Constitution may be the only way to fix the divided state of the union” by Chris Edelson, published: Jan 30, 2018 1:18 p.m. ET, wherein the author states as follows:
If you were writing a Constitution for the United States from scratch today, how many provisions from our national charter would you keep?
As was said by Alexander Hamilton in the original Federalist No. 1 back in 1787, the subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world, and so it is again today, in our times.
In the original Federalist No. 1, writing as Publius, Alexander Hamilton informed the people of the State of New York as follows:
It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.
End quotes
As is incandescently clear from the Democratic State of the Union Address delivered by Congressman Joe “Drooling Joe†Kennedy III with its powerful and captivating theme “the Democrats offer ‘a better deal’ for America,” it has once again been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.
Look at what the Democrats are telling us here in their State of the Union Address:
Like many American hometowns, Fall River has faced its share of storms.
But people here are tough.
They fight for each other.
They pull for their city.
It is a fitting place to gather as our nation reflects on the state of our union.
This is a difficult task.
Many have spent the past year anxious, angry, afraid.
We all feel the fault lines of a fractured country.
We hear the voices of Americans who feel forgotten and forsaken.
We see an economy that makes stocks soar, investor portfolios bulge and corporate profits climb but fails to give workers their fair share of the reward.
A government that struggles to keep itself open.
Russia knee-deep in our democracy.
An all-out war on environmental protection.
A Justice Department rolling back civil rights by the day.
Hatred and supremacy proudly marching in our streets.
Bullets tearing through our classrooms, concerts, and congregations.
Targeting our safest, sacred places.
And that nagging, sinking feeling, no matter your political beliefs: this is not right.
This is not who we are.
End quotes
As was said by Alexander Hamilton in 1787, if there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
Consider that again, people – a wrong election of the part we shall act may deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
And is that something we want to wish on our children and grandchildren?
As was the case in 1787, happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good.
But as Alexander Hamilton said back then, this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected.
Why?
Because no one any longer has a clue as to what the “public good†might be, or is.
To the contrary, as the Democrat State of the Union address makes clear, there is a Democrat version of the “public good†and there is a conflicting Republican version which the wily and canny Democrats characterize as follows:
It would be easy to dismiss the past year as chaos.
Partisanship.
Politics.
But it’s far bigger than that.
This administration isn’t just targeting the laws that protect us – they are targeting the very idea that we are all worthy of protection.
For them, dignity isn’t something you’re born with but something you measure.
By your net worth, your celebrity, your headlines, your crowd size.
Not to mention, the gender of your spouse.
The country of your birth.
The color of your skin.
The God of your prayers.
Their record is a rebuke of our highest American ideal: the belief that we are all worthy, we are all equal and we all count.
In the eyes of our law and our leaders, our God and our government.
That is the American promise.
But today that promise is being broken.
By an Administration that callously appraises our worthiness and decides who makes the cut and who can be bargained away.
They are turning American life into a zero-sum game.
Where, in order for one to win, another must lose.
End quotes
As was said in 1787, among the most formidable of the obstacles which a new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
In this case, those several partial confederacies are today known by the appellations of RED STATES, controlled by one of the warring political factions in this country, and BLUE STATES, controlled by the other of the warring factions in this country, to the detriment of those of us not aligned with either of the warring factions, and as Alexander Hamilton told the people of the State of New York in 1787, a further reason for caution, in this respect of a new form of government for this nation, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists.
Are the Democrats more right, more pure, more holy than the Republicans?
Afterall, just as was the case in 1787, ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question, and were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties, for in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.
As Alexander Hamilton so wisely said back then, heresies in either politics or religion can rarely be cured by persecution, and yet, just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion.
A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.
To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.
An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.
An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.
It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.
On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.
History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
End quotes
All of those words are from the original Federalist No. 1, and I repeat them in here, as they are once again applicable to the times we now find ourselves in, in this divided nation.
As did Alexander Hamilton back in 1787, in the course of the preceding observations in here, I have had an eye, my fellow citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth.
So I too propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:
THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT
THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, and lastly
THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.
It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries.
But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in private circles that the fifty States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.
It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution.
This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.
Paul Plante says
NEO-FEDERALIST No. 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
For the Cape Charles Mirror.
To the People of the State of Virginia:
WHEN the people of America reflect, as they should be doing right now at this perilous time in our nation’s history, that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.
This is the question we are called upon to decide: Is nothing more certain than the indispensable necessity of government?
Is government truly indispensable?
Or should we accept anarchy in its stead as our lot?
And is it equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers?
As was said in 1787, it is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.
That idea of separate confederacies, which we already see happening as states become either RED states, or BLUE states, is not a new idea in this country, and we see it being brought back in the essay of Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs and the author of “Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security” published in May 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press, in a Marketwatch article entitled “Opinion: Why a new U.S. Constitution may be the only way to fix the divided state of the union,” published: Jan 30, 2018, as follows:
In their new book, “How Democracies Die,” professors Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt explain why they see authoritarian tendencies and warning signs in Trump’s presidency that could threaten democracy in the United States — a threat they contend did not begin with Trump.
end quotes
No, it did not begin with Trump.
It began with Barack Hussein Obama.
Trump is a backlash to Obama, a violent swing of the pendulum in an opposite direction.
In their new book, “How Democracies Die,” professors Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt continue as follows:
But it is also necessary to shore up the Constitution itself in order to make it more protective of democracy.
Here are some proposed changes for a new Constitution:
• Either eliminate the Senate or create a new system allocating senators to multi-state regions containing roughly equal populations.
end quotes
That would be a radical change to our present frame of government, and those multi-state regions proposed would become the new confederacies in America,
In the original Federalist No. 2, it was said that it has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object.
But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.
end quotes
As we enter this next federal election cycle, with the return of the Progressive Democrat Messiah Barack Hussein Obama on the campaign trail, and the entry of the Democratic Socialists of America on Obama’s coattails, we will be seeing a lot more talk of this division of this nation which is on-going as we speak, with some states becoming sanctuary states where federal laws no longer apply.
As was said then, however extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number.
Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy, which is where I am coming from in here, futile effort, or not.
When I was young, it often gave me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty.
Providence had in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants.
A succession of navigable waters formed a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, presented them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I had as often taken notice that Providence had been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, had nobly established the general liberty and independence we were supposed to have inherited as our birthright as American citizens.
But as Joe “Drooling Joe” Kennedy III, who incidentally comes by that name honestly for the apparent drool or slobber on his lips as he gave the Democratic State of the Union Address the other night with its powerful, captivating and enchanting theme “the Democrats offer ‘a better deal’ for America,” makes incandescently clear in the Democrat State of the Union Address, we are no longer that nation we once were, and so, we are no longer people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.
We have become a Tower of Babel nation, instead.
Look at what the Democrats are telling us here in their State of the Union Address for confirmation of that reality:
We all feel the fault lines of a fractured country.
Hatred and supremacy proudly marching in our streets.
And that nagging, sinking feeling, no matter your political beliefs: this is not right.
This is not who we are.
end quotes
This country and it’s people once seemed to have been made for each other, and it appeared as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
But those ties no longer exist, as the Democrat State of the Union address makes patently clear:
It would be easy to dismiss the past year as chaos.
Partisanship.
Politics.
But it’s far bigger than that.
This administration isn’t just targeting the laws that protect us – they are targeting the very idea that we are all worthy of protection.
For them, dignity isn’t something you’re born with but something you measure.
By your net worth, your celebrity, your headlines, your crowd size.
Not to mention, the gender of your spouse.
The country of your birth.
The color of your skin.
The God of your prayers.
Their record is a rebuke of our highest American ideal: the belief that we are all worthy, we are all equal and we all count.
To all general purposes we had heretofore uniformly been one people, each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.
All that has changed with the onset of partisan politics infecting every level of our government in this country.
As a nation we had made peace and war; as a nation we had vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we had formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it.
Now, we have a joke.
They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well balanced government for a free people.
It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.
Intelligent people among us now perceive and regret these defects.
Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed then the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the convention at Philadelphia in 1787, to take that important subject under consideration.
That convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task.
In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan was only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it was neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demanded, and which it certainly ought to have received.
But this was more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined.
Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes.
Sadly, it is now forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774.
It is forgotten that that body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; and it is no longer in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures.
Today, we are at the very same place all over again.
Not only many of the officers of government today, who obey the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, are now indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress back at the beginning time of this nation, and to give us a new government, a socialist worker’s paradise this time around.
Many, indeed, are now deceived and deluded by these arguments being put forth by the Democratic Socialists of America and the Progressive Democrats in their State of the Union address, where they tell us as follows:
We choose a better deal for all who call this country home.
We choose the living wage, paid leave and affordable child care your family needs to survive.
We choose pensions that are solvent, trade pacts that are fair, roads and bridges that won’t rust away, and good education you can afford.
We choose a health care system that offers mercy, whether you suffer from cancer or depression or addiction.
We choose an economy strong enough to boast record stock prices AND brave enough to admit that top CEOs making 300 times the average worker is not right.
We choose Fall River.
We choose the thousands of American communities whose roads aren’t paved with power or privilege, but with honest effort, good faith, and the resolve to build something better for their kids.
That is our story.
It began the day our Founding Fathers and Mothers set sail for a New World, fleeing oppression and intolerance.
It continued with every word of our Independence – the audacity to declare that all men are created equal.
An imperfect promise for a nation struggling to become a more perfect union.
Bullies may land a punch.
They might leave a mark.
But they have never, not once, in the history of our United States, managed to match the strength and spirit of a people united in defense of their future.
Politicians can be cheered for the promises they make.
Our country will be judged by the promises we keep.
THAT is the measure of our character.
That’s who we are.
Out of many.
One.
Ladies and gentlemen, have faith: The state of our union is hopeful, resilient, enduring.
Thank you, God Bless you and your families, and God Bless the United States of America.
ends quotes
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the convention of 1787 invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union.
To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it was also the great object of the plan which the convention had advised them to adopt.
With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union?
Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one?
I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers.
They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy.
That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet:
“FAREWELL!”
“A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.”
Paul Plante says
NEO-FEDERALIST No. 3
The Same Subject Continued
For the Cape Charles Mirror
To the People of the State of Virginia:
In the original Federalist No. 3, John Jay, writing as Publius at the time of this nation’s beginning back in 1787, wrote that it used to be an new observation that the people of any country if intelligent and well informed, would seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests.
Note the key words in there – “if intelligent and well informed.”
How many people today can claim to be well informed versus barraged with sound bites and hyperbole and outright bull**** and absolute nonsense from the two worthless political factions which have usurped our democratic processes and arrogated to themselves the running of our government, to our continued detriment as a people?
And in the face of an NPR article entitled “Cost Of U.S. Opioid Epidemic Since 2001 Is $1 Trillion And Climbing” by Greg Allen on February 13, 2018, where we were informed that the opioid epidemic has cost the U.S. more than a trillion dollars since 2001, according to a new study, and may exceed another $500 billion over the next three years, and that the average age at which opioid deaths are occurring in in the late 30s or early 40s, people that are in the prime of the productive years of their lives, can we any longer claim to be an “intelligent” people?
In 1787, when Federalist No. 3 was written, we were told that that consideration naturally tended to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America had 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.
But times have certainly changed since then, if it ever really was that way, which is highly doubtful based upon the political writings of other Americans back then, such as Oliver Ellsworth in “A Landholder VIII” on December 24, 1787, or “A Freeman” Essay to the People of Connecticut in the Connecticut Courant of Hartford on December 31, 1787, and the more attentively I today consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this new opinion that we should split up into RED states and BLUE states, the more I become convinced that they are neither cogent nor conclusive, but notwithstanding, seem very powerful.
Among the many objects at the time of this nation’s founding as a Republic to which a wise and free people used to find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seemed to be the first, which would make all the sense in the world given the times they had just lived through.
Consider “A Freeman” Essay to the People of Connecticut on December 31, 1787 on that subject, as follows:
Our country now seems to hang in anxious suspense, not knowing whether she is to have a good and efficient government or none at all, or a despotic one imposed upon her by some daring adventurer.
She has fought, her enemies must do her the justice to own, gallantly with one of the most powerful kingdoms on the globe; a kingdom which had spread the glory of its arms and the terror of its name over every quarter of the world.
She has bled, we are all mournful witnesses, at a thousand veins through a bloody and long way.
She has nobly conquered, to the astonishment of the nations of Europe.
On account of her splendid victories and passion for freedom approaching to enthusiasm, her fame has diffused itself far and wide.
Her generals, her soldiers, her perseverance and patience under every difficulty, her statesmen and her resources are the admiration of distant nations, and probably will be of applauding posterity, if she improve aright the present eligible situation for adopting a good federal system of policy.
The grand question is—shall she be happy in a good or wretched in a bad form of government?
Shall all her blood and treasures expended in the late war be lost?
Shall the advantages which she now possesses, prodigal-like be squandered away?
end quotes
As was said in the original Federalist No. 3, and how true it is today, 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.
However, at that time, Jay, writing as Publius, stated that at that present moment in time, he meant only to consider it as it respected 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.
Now focus on his priorities there for a moment, people.
At the top of his list back then, he meant “the SAFETY of the people” to mean security for the preservation of peace and tranquility, where peace means freedom from disturbance and freedom from war or violence; while tranquility means the quality or state of being tranquil and calm.
So, given that, in our times today, where we are faced with never-ending war and have anything but tranquility in this country, can we claim to have SAFETY in this nation?
In the original Federalist No. 3, Jay told us that as the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed, so let us therefore proceed in our times today to examine whether the people are right in their opinion that a divided, uncordial Union, with some states RED and some states BLUE under an inefficient national government such as we are saddled with now, an embarrassment, actually, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad, given that as “Joe “Drooling Joe” Kennedy tells us in the Democrat State of the Union address, we have Russia knee-deep in our democracy.
As was said in the original Federalist No. 3, 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, and is that ever true in our times today.
In the original Federalist No. 3, Jay as Publius stated 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.
Except in our times today, that is not true.
Today, the union, which has become highly fractured through partisan politics and internecine warfare, tends least to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.
As Jay said back then, the JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence, and at the time of his writing, America had already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, were maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us.
At the time of his writing, America also had extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, had, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.
In 1787, Jay said that it was of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to him it appeared evident that this would 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.
But what of today, people?
Is it still of high importance to the peace of America today that America observe the laws of nations towards all the other powers on the face of the earth, and does it appear evident to us that this would be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could by the distinct confederacies proposed in their new book, “How Democracies Die,” professors Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt where they call for amending the Constitution to create a new system allocating senators to multi-state regions containing roughly equal populations?
In the original Federalist No. 3, Jay writing as Publius stated a belief that once an efficient national government was established, the best men in the country would not only consent to serve, but also would 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 would be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, especially as it would have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States.
But today, that like so many things promised by the Founding Fathers, is no longer true.
Today, we do not have the best men/women in the country not only consenting to serve, but also generally being appointed to manage it; to the contrary, we have what the Republicans and Democrats dish up for us, so that today, as Joe Kennedy tells us in the Democrat State of the Union address, we all feel the fault lines of a fractured country, and we hear the voices of Americans who feel forgotten and forsaken as we see an economy that makes stocks soar, investor portfolios bulge and corporate profits climb but fails to give workers their fair share of the reward, while we are stuck with a government that thanks to the ineptitude of the Republican faction and the Democrat faction that struggles to keep itself open and Russia is knee-deep in our democracy, while hatred and supremacy proudly march in our streets as bullets tearing through our classrooms, concerts, and congregations targeting our safest, sacred places.
In 1787, in Federalist No. 3, Jay writing as Publius told us that it would result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government would 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.
Today, that can be seen as just one more broken promise, because the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government are not more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently, are not more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
That is because under the divided national government we are stuck with today, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, are not always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner.
In 1787, Jay told us that 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, and that the national government, in such cases, would not be affected by this pride, but would proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.
Again, thanks to the Democrat faction and the Republican faction in our federal or national government whose internecine warfare has so divided and diminished this nation, and because of their pride, the national government has become a mockery incapable of proceeding with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them, and us, by extension.
So where does that leave us then, people?
A question for our times.
Paul Plante says
NEO-FEDERALIST No. 4
The Same Subject Continued
(Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence)
For the Cape Charles Mirror
To the People of the State of Virginia:
In the original Federalist No. 4, Jay, writing as Publius, reminded his readers that his last paper, Federalist No. 3, assigned several reasons why the safety of the American people, which is now us, would be best secured by union against the danger it may be exposed to by JUST causes of war given to other nations; and those reasons show that such causes would not only be more rarely given, but would also be more easily accommodated, by a national government than either by the State governments or the proposed little confederacies.
And then he went on to say that the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.
And what do we hear today, people?
In his Democrat Party State of the Union address where he told us “the state of our union is hopeful, resilient, enduring,” in the same breath, progressive democrat Joe “Drooling Joe” Kennedy III told us the hard truth that we have Russia knee-deep in our democracy.
And just the other day, CNBC gave us this glaring headline, “‘Frankly, the United States is under attack’: DNI Coats sounds alarm over cyberthreats from Russia” by Kevin Breuninger on 13 Feb. 2018 where we were told:
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats framed global cybersecurity threats in stark terms on Tuesday, saying: “Frankly, the United States is under attack.”
He said the cybersecurity threats from state and nonstate entities are using technology to target “virtually every major action that takes place” and are one of his “greatest concerns and top priorities.”
end quotes
Getting back to the original Federalist No. 4, writing as PUblius, Jay stated as follows:
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans.
These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
end quotes
That, people is the world we find ,ourselves mired in today, thanks in some large part to a largely unknown federal government document called NSC-68, which turned us into the “national security state” that we have become as a result, with the National Security State or Doctrine referring to the ideology and institutions (CIA, Dept. of Defense) established by the National Security Act of 1947, an enduring legacy of then President Harry S. Truman, in support of his doctrine “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,” which doctrine helps explain the transformative process that ended in the ultimate demise of the New Deal state with its emphasis on social spending and ushered in the militarist National Security State, according to Michael J. Hogan in “A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945-1954,” Cambridge University Press, 1998.
A defining feature of a National Security State is its obsession with enemies, and that is so us in America today, it isn’t funny.
As we are seeing everyday, there are enemies of the “state” everywhere, and constantly defending against external and/or internal enemies has become a leading preoccupation of the “state,” as well as a distorting factor in the economy, and a major source of national identity and purpose.
Another ideological foundation of a National Security State is that the enemies of the state are cunning and ruthless, like ISIS, or the Taliban, so that therefore, any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified, even if it results in a humanitarian crisis and civilian casualties as has been the result of Barack Obama’s military invasion of Syria in his inept attempt to remove Basher Assad of Syria from power by force.
In the original Federalist No. 4, Jay wrote that independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances.
In the trade to China and India, said Jay writing as Publius in 1787, we interfere with more than one nation, inasmuch as it enables us to partake in advantages which they had in a manner monopolized, and as we thereby supply ourselves with commodities which we used to purchase from them, and the extension of our own commerce in our own vessels could not give pleasure to any nations who possess territories on or near this continent, because the cheapness and excellence of our productions, added to the circumstance of vicinity, and the enterprise and address of our merchants and navigators, would give us a greater share in the advantages which those territories afford, than consists with the wishes or policy of their respective sovereigns.
Back then, Spain thought it convenient to shut the Mississippi against us on the one side, and Britain excluded us from the Saint Lawrence on the other; nor would either of them permit the other waters which are between them and us to become the means of mutual intercourse and traffic.
From those and such like considerations said Jay in 1787, which might, if consistent with prudence, be more amplified and detailed, it was easy then to see that jealousies and uneasinesses may gradually slide into the minds and cabinets of other nations, and that we were not to expect that they should regard our advancement in union, in power and consequence by land and by sea, with an eye of indifference and composure.
end quotes
Why would we expect it then to be any different today?
In the original Federalist No. 4, Jay wrote that the people of America at that time in our nation’s history were aware that inducements to war may arise out of those circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting.
Wisely, therefore, did they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it.
But now, people, the situation has become reversed.
Now we are stuck with a national government that invites war, instead of tending to repress and discourage it.
In the original Federalist No. 4, Jay wrote that as the safety of the whole was the interest of the whole, and could not be provided for without government, either one or more or many, then let the American people inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever.
According to Jay in Federalist No. 4, one government could collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found.
It could move on uniform principles of policy.
It could harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each.
end quotes
Today, thanks to the Democrat faction and the Republican faction, we no longer have one good government.
We have instead a divided bad government that as “Drooling Joe” Kennedy told us in his 30 January 2018 Democrat State of the Union address causes us all to feel the fault lines of a fractured country, hearing the voices of Americans who feel forgotten and forsaken while that divided, practically worthless government struggles to keep itself open.
Getting back to the original Federalist No. 1, Jay further wrote that in the formation of treaties, it would regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole, but now with respect to treaties, we have a confused mess where what one president of one faction has put together, a president of a different faction takes back apart.
In the original Federalist No. 4, Jay stated that one good government could apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies could possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system by placing the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, which would, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.
Today, we have states under the control of one political faction declaring themselves to be “sanctuary” states where the laws of the national government no longer apply.
Jay then continued by saying that whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly.
If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit reestablished, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment.
If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes!
How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.
end quotes
In that, people, when he says dear-bought experience proclaims that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves, he is talking about us, right now today.
Foreign nations now see that our national government is not efficient nor is it well administered, nor are our people free, contented, and united, so that they will be much more disposed to provoke our resentment rather than cultivate our friendship, precisely because they find us destitute of an effectual government with each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient which makes our America a poor, pitiful figure in their eyes!