What the Founding Fathers Really Said (Part II of a Series)

Man, John Jay was really wordy. He used a lot of words to say very little. Federalist Papers No. 2,3,4 and 5 were about the importance of the Union for the security of the nation. Jay argues that the first order of a government is to secure its people. He thought that the Union would be a more powerful and deliberate way to secure peace. He viewed a confederation of independent states as unruly and prone to irrational and unjust conflict based on emotion and pride. He also thought that a wise national government would be more able to cool the passions and particularistic interests of states. Jay also highlighted the importance of following international law (the laws of war at the time) with respect to other nations. Here are a few excerpts.

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

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

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

There you have it, the justification of war is the violation of treaties and direct violence. Sponsoring terrorism would probably fall under that category of direct violence. How would the Iraq War fit into this conception? Can you make it fit? I am skeptical.

But 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.

The rest of 4 and 5 emphasize that a united country would be less likely to be threatened by foreign force, more easily defended, and less likely to quarrel among themselves.

Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 6,7, and 8. He is becoming one of my favorite Founding Fathers. He argued, in a very realist sense, that human nature is power grabbing and a confederacy of independent states would lead to conflict. He also warns against professional militaries, saying that they elevate the military above the citizens and can lead to increased conflict. Perhaps the Founder's intended that the military be drafted, but who supports this nowadays?

James Madison wrote 9 and 10, mainly extolling the virtues of unity and the desirability of a republic to check the passions of a nefarious majority. He also came out against paper money. I guess that battle has been lost. Do we really want to go back to using gold? The necessities of a modern economy cannot jibe with some of the Founders' intents, and I think that if they were alive today they would realize that.

Hamiton, in 11, wrote of the benefit of the Union towards the creation of a navy and the assertion of US commercial interests. This passage was really interesting:

The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority, and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America--that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere.1 Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will will add another victim to his triumphs.

An interesting acknowledgement of the Eurocentric nature of the world and the ideological pathologies that resulted from that.

Federalist 12, 13, and 14 generally describe the benefits of the Union for the economy and revenue collection. Hamilton extols the virtues of free trade for the US and argues for a consumption tax rather than a property tax given that most of the country's people are employed in agriculture their land is not easily turned into a revenue stream capable of paying taxes, as would a rentier landlord or a commercial enterprise. Clearly, the founding fathers designed the tax system to suit the nature of the economy of the time. If the economy had been different I'm sure they would have proposed a different system.

What the Founding Fathers Really Said (Part I of a Series)

A certain movement in American politics today, namely the Tea Party movement, has a particular view of the US Constitution and other founding documents. They view these documents in the same manner that a devout Christian reads the Bible, looking and trying to understand the received truth from on High. If there is a work of God, those that look critically on this work are heathens at best and devils at worst. Now, I don't mean to say that the founding fathers were not great philosophers and public servants who created a great and durable political system. They had a certain wisdom that we should follow today. Our political system could not work without a reverence for the Founding Fathers and the political system they created. That is healthy patriotism. However, sometimes patriotism slides into idolatry. The Founding Fathers were not gods, but they were great men, with great ideas.

Therefore, in order to better understand the Founding Fathers, what they said, what they didn't say, and how to interpret their message for today, I'm going to read and analyze some founding documents, particularly the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were a series of political pamphlets that some of the Founding Fathers wrote to the people in various states attempting to convince them of the desirability of the Union and the system they developed. We can begin at the beginning Federalist No. 1 written by Alexander Hamilton to the State of New York, here are some excerpts I thought relevant:

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. 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 this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Hamilton is here lamenting that though the US Constitution is a great document written in the spirit of the public interest, the decision to adopt it cannot help but be influenced by a need to accommodate the selfish interests of many of the parties to it. It would be great if politicians all looked out for the good of everyone, but they often do not, this is why a balance of powers is necessary.

And yet, however 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.

This is a VERY strong message sent by Hamilton to the people that oppose the Constitution and the formation of an effective government. Often the zeal and jealousy for liberty leads to tyranny. More tyrants have been created by ineffective government that cannot secure the liberties of the people than by a government that is too strong. A zeal for liberty can lead to demagoguery and a violation of the liberties of others if not checked by effective government.

Full-text of Federalist No.1 can be found at http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/